Meh, I taught my self Morse on the edge of that era with the aid of some free DOS-based software from a BBS. It really wasn't much more of an effort than learning to touch type,
I'll bet I can put you to shame in my technical ability. But I won't because if you are a Ham, you passed the tests.
But I suck at Morse code, probably a combination of deafness, tinmnitus and the result that my brain processes all sounds the same.
So if you passed Morse code easily, you aren't intelligent enought to know it is just a skill that was easy for you.
If you are someone who learned to type Dvorak your mind could easily handle learning Morse.
The great practical advantage of Morse in my mind is that it will get a message through on a poor signal where voice is impossible, and doesn't require any additional modulation equipment beyond what you have on your shoulders to make it work. So I didn't feel the least bit put out that they removed the Morse test soon after I'd put in the work to learn it. I never really understood what the fuss was about really.
Because people like me, who can commit a textbook or manual to memory after reading it one time, were not eligible because I didn't have the psychomotor skills to do what you appear to think is so trivial that any schmo can do it.
Demanding proficiency in a physical activity as a requirement for Ham radio licensing makes as much sense as demanding that a Ham can run a 50 yard dash in under 6 seconds, and shaving a second or two off that requirement for eaxh level of licensing.
Meanwhile if you are happy doing Morse Code, that's great, and I'm glad for you. Me? your Meh is noted. We are fortunate to be living at a time where such greatness as you walks among us lesser beings..
It's always been a mess. I was licensed at age 15 and at age 40 I'm still one of the younger hams at clubs, swaps, etc.. Even back in the early 90's Amateur Radio was the domain of old guys who complained that no-coders weren't real hams.
CW and sideband voice are the lowest common denominator for communications. That's why everyone still uses it. There's definitely a "you first" attitude when it comes to doing anything new. Even the JT modes, which are far superior to CW for weak signal, are resisted. Codec 2 and FreeDV are actually better than SSB but because no one is willing to spend an hour figuring it out it languishes.
Better is so subjective. I've tried FreeDV, and I find it's best attribure is a dead quiet background. The voice quality? Not so much. It does what it does certainly, but pushes the bandwidth so hard that some of us have issues hearing it. But that dead silent digital background comes at a price.
The digital cliff effect. You can hear a weak, scratchy, yet intelligible SSB signal much longer than a digital voice signal is giving you dead quiet silence.
I like JT because of it's ability to work below the noise floor. I especially enjoy WSPR, a propagation tool version of the new modes.
But SSB voice is remarkably efficient for an old school mode, and digital attempts at it don't really improve efficiency.
I say pointless because Morse is the very earliest, not-very-good form of binary communications. Today we have gone far beyond it in binary tech. Let's concentrate on systems that can get TCP/IP through under the most marghinal of conditions, and on organizing for disaster preparedness: area map, stored supplies and parts, secure locations for ham gear, coordination with local emergency services.
The CW crowd is presently up in arms about the digital modes like FT8. We hear from them about how these modes are killing Ham radio.
I suspect they are more upset about losing the claim that they are the best mode for getting through with very weak signals, and the new digital modes regularly work signals below the noise floor.
A method of getting through the noise floor is killing Ham Radio? How rational!
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place. They just want to take, take, take and return nothing. Barriers to entry are a good thing. You don't want the Great Unwashed to spoil your good thing. That's how we ended up with Brexit.
It wasn't a free pass for know nothings to join. You still would have had to take the theory test, which if you take a look at is no walk in the park
A lot of Hams look at today's tests and think "Any old asshole could pass that test.
And guess what? I've done the research after listening to the olde fartes bitch and moan about giving licenses away in cereal boxes.
The results? Aside from removing vacuum tube questions, the level of the tests is just similar.
Why the bitching and moaning? The incredibly brilliant olde tymers who suffered the incredibly difficult test regimen under the steely eyed FCC examiner simply didn't know as much at the time. In the following years they learned more. But they forgot that they learned more over time, so the very similar tests that any asshole can pass means they might have been the assholes themselves. It just looks much easier because of accumulated knowledge
In reality not, it is just the selective memory of old guy syndrome, the glee they get from becoming incredibly angry about incredibly trivial things.
For people like me, who are largely deaf, it isn't any fun
You can learn it visually. Just watch an LED blink. Your brain will soon learn the patterns, and you will be able to recognize entire words and phrases reflexively.
I learned Morse code visually, by watching the signal lamps used for ship-to-ship communication. There wasn't much else to do on a long deployment.
You're correct, because I can do it visually, just not at very high speed.
Barriers to entry are good if they involve a relevant and useful skill.
For instance, handling emergency braking in a turn would be a useful skill to require of car drivers. Requiring them to calculate a square root is not, since that has nothing to do with driving.
Morse code is useless. How do I know? Because I know Morse code. Haven't used it in decades.
I wouldn't call it completely useless, although I largely agree. It is slow, and is merely a psychomotor ability. For people like me, who are largely deaf, it isn't any fun, and while I an copy a clean signal FB, add noise to it, and my brain, which attempts to process noise at the same importance as intelligence carried in the tones, simply screws up.
It took me the better part of a year to learn Morse code. Which was painful for a guy who reads a manual or textbook once and commits it to memory.
Morse Code acumen is more a hazing ritual than anything else.
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place. They just want to take, take, take and return nothing. Barriers to entry are a good thing. You don't want the Great Unwashed to spoil your good thing. That's how we ended up with Brexit.
Have you read of some of the great on-air brawls of the past? All performed by old school higher speed Morse Code testing and the supposed harder testing in days of yore. People who would be considered elites by the self professed "better hams" of today.
Testing is good. Testing can keep the noob from electrocuting themselves. And in a technical hobby, should simply be expected. But let's not pretend that it is some sort of barrier to assholes.
Side note: One of my favorite little tricks is when some of the Testing makes the superior ham folks are in high dudgeon about their testing, I agree, and tell them that Hams should keep up on technology, and suggest that in order to keep their license, all hams should be re-tested every 5 years.
The reaction is precious. Turns out the folks who were licensed in 1970 on tube equipment and haven't learned a thing since them get a little upset with that idea.
It's ironic because these days people complain that the hobby is dying because there's mostly only old timers left; the old timers basically dug their own grave because of their clique-ish nature over morse code requirements,
Cool story dude!
I like to open up several slices on my radio and show just how Ham Radio is "dying".
Sometimes I wonder if these people understand propagation or just have shitty antennas. Mine are good, not the best, but good.
Because what my slices show is a lot of activity - even CW, which I don't use much because of virtual deafness.
Now that being said, your post sounds like a fine example of grouchy old man syndrome. You'd be a hit in certain circles that haunt 80 meters
Not true... I'm a member of the Dutch radio amateur association, VERON. Most I see are around 55-65, not 70-80. There are quite a few 40-ish and at the main (national) level there is an active youth commission.
The basic demographics have changed. As in many other hobbies or avocations, people are waiting before licensing and activitiy.
The stereotype Olde farte Ham who got his license when he was ten years old is a vanishing breed.
The more modern version is a ham who waited until his or her children have been largely raised to become involved. This is also true of my other hobby of Amateur Astronomy. I was 46 when I was first licensed, and 47 when I earned my Extra.
And what does this mean? Just that the average age of active Amateurs is older.
As for the hobby, it is only something to joke about. Amateurs in general are a diverse group with diverse outlooks and diverse technical acumen.
Some folks like to point at one group and if that group amuses them, try to apply the meme to everyone.
We have our wanna-be first responders, the whackers. We have our olde fartes on 80 meters, lamenting that the south lost the civil war. We have our Appliance Operators, who have nice equipment but haven't a clue how it works. We have our Morse Code uber alles operators
We also have experimenters and weak signal fans, and our own maker branch.
My own interests are in making devices, digital communication, and weak signal work. Although I have a lot of radios, my flagship is a Flex Radio running SmartSDR software. It is a server with an RF front end.
3. When your employer finds out you refuse to help people, especially if it is part of your job. They will promote you and shower you with CEO level money.
Protip: Tell your boss to go fuck himself, and expose yourself to the ladies in HR, and grab a few of their butts while you are at it. The company will be your oyster.
Anything might be a bio weapon. this is a bit bonkers. Just as any high energy physics, rocketry, encryption algorithm, or computer could be a weapon and probably is.
On a few occasions, I think my farts were just that.
I can't even follow your line of thinking here. All I did was point out that Rey was deemed a Mary Sue despite having far fewer of the traits of a Mary Sue character than Luke, and Luke wasn't. Therefore she has a reasonable complaint about being treated differently, although we can debate how much that is due to sexism and how much due to other factors.
Sorry, allow me to be blunt. I dismiss your assessment that Luke is a Marty Sue. I dismiss anyone's suggestion that Calling Daisey Ridley's Rey character a Mary Sue is indicative of sexism. Marty Su or Mary Sue has nothing to do with sex.
And since Mary Sue or Marty Sue is in no way based on sex other than the first name. Utilizing the term is in no way sexist, any more than drinking white milk or chocolate milk makes a person racist. Non sequitur.
She said it was sexist - it was not. If someone said her character was impossible because women are stupid - that would be sexist. And if your assessment of Mark Hamill's character as a Marty Sue is your belief, why don't you tell him that. If you get a reply, it will probably be laughter, not bawling how unfair things are.
Perhaps I need to simplfy it more?
Marty Sue/MarySue - not referring to anyone's genitals.
Well she has a point, Luke was much worse than Rey for being brilliant at everything instantly. There does appear to be a double standard there.
I seem to recall Luke having many problems while learning to be a Jedi. He was definitely not instantly brilliant.
And it isn't much of a point when a person takes a name like Mary Sue, which stands for a particular thing, and turns it into something it isn't.
Or perhaps, in illustration of my point,
since you agree that calling Mz Ridley a Mary Sue is sexist.
Then you claim that Mark Hamill's character is the exact definition of a Mary Sue character - Or Marty Sue to be more exact
Then you claim that there is a double standard.
So if a person claims the character Rey is a Mary Sue is an indication of sexism, What is the indication of a person who holds those beliefs, yet then goes on to claim that the Character of Luke Skywalker is a Marty Sue character? speaking of double standards.
And why is genital hardware involved in a non sexual matter? The "Sues" are not sex specific. They are characters like STTNG's Wesley Crusher, who are an irritant in a story line. A wunderkind for whom everything is just so.
The point is that there will be fan criticism for any movie. This is not because being critical means that you hate the movie. On the contrary, the fan criticism is based on loving the series. There was fan criticism of the mentally challenged JarJar Binks Character. There was fan criticism of the Ewoks taking down a modern technological fighting force with sticks and stones. There was criticism of the Empire's soldier's not being able to shoot straight.
It does not mean that the Binks critics hate people who are mentally challenged. It doesn't mean people hate beavers or teddy bears. It doesn't mean that people hate bad shots in white plastic outfits.
And trying to make a non-sex based criticism into one is showing some biases of their own.
No, as noted before in post a long while back, the problem that arose isn't Russian bots, or those pesky white males who ruin everything, but Disney and Kennedy and Johnson choosing to belittle and mock the very people who are responsible for the money they take in. Have you ever seen a Star Wars fan's den? They spend a lot of money on their favorite series. They are passionate in discussing what they like or don't like. The go to the same movie several times. But they have been designated as the enemy by Disney et al.
Complaints mean people are watching. Complaints mean that someone cared enough to make the complaint. And even if a producer of a film disagrees with the complaint, they should listen, and if a sensible complaint, take it as advisement.
When the complaints stop, it doesn't mean you won the battle with your enemies H^H^H^H^H^H^ erm fans. It means your enemy stopped being interested.
Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era
> like a drowning man clutches at a straw
Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).
I forgot to ask - should we eliminate corporate taxes and pay the wages that they receive in India?
NO criticism is allowed, and even if you have to make shit up, like Daisey Ridly, who says that calling her Rey Character a "Mary Sue" character was sexist. And she demands that the term "Mary Sue be banned.http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/star-wars/news/a845936/star-wars-the-last-jedi-daisy-ridley-rey-mary-sue-criticism-sexist/
But othere than the name, Mary Sue, the term has nothing to do with the hardware between a person's legs. Why, there are Marty Sues, and Gary Sues. The concept is the same always.
A character for whom everything just happens. Wesley Crusher in Star Trek TNG is a perfect example. And like all of the "Sues" he was damn annoying.
the message is crystal clear. Brittle, over sensitive prima donnas that simply cannot handle anything but effusive praise, and go nuts as they consider any criticism as a personal attack that must be whined about, and pull out pejorative terms they keep as bludgeons.
Mz Ridley does not see the irony in calling her critics all sexist, while she goes nuts over her character being called a Mary Sue. I believe the old term is she can dish it out, but cannot take it.
Don't fall for that. There is usually more meta-outrage on YouTube than there was actual outrage in the first place.
Kennedy and Johnson do not consider complaints as a gift (so few do these days)
But they are gifts.
We don't have to respond to criticisms by making demanded changes, indeed on my own projects, I often get diametrcically opposed demands, so someone gets left out. But I do thank each and every critic for their input. And if their input makes sense, I change it, and tell them I appreciate the good idea.
This does not fly with some people
Way back in Rogue one days, when asked about the perceived political correctness of having another female lead in what was historically a male dominated series - apparently forgetting that the Princess Leia was a lead, Kennedy apparently took it badly:
"I have a responsibility to the company that I work with. I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. I would never just seize on saying, 'Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to men for many, many years, and therefore I owe men something.'"
Rian Johnson has apparently been "Expertly shutting down Fans" in this positive piece, which priases the rejection of the peopel who give you their money. http://www.digitalspy.com/movi... He also spent a fair amount of time mocking fans, and calling them manbabies.
The point is that Lucasfilm and Disney apparently do not need people to go to the movies any more. If I responded to my sponsors when they had a criticism telling them I do not need to cater to them or mocking them - I would go broke.
Disney and Kennedy et al, apparently do not need to profit, only to make films and throw shade at those who would dare to not march in lockstep with them
That's what I liked about the "next generation" Star Trek series. Sometimes you don't even realize how awesome an individual woman is because she FITS with the ensemble. They don't need to stick out 100% of the time to be an essential part of the crew because they (as most strong women) are confident in themselves.
This depiction of confidence has been lost in more recent years.
Very insightful. I think this points to something that is perhaps jarring about modern female Leads. More on that below.
It's been replaced by this strange NEED to stick out and be prominent above being part of a team, unable to work in the background for no fanfare and yet know you are doing something important.
And this would put a firm understanding on what I was originally saying was obnoxious about the modern female characters. While I wasjust thinking they were obnoxious, this concept nails it. They are insecure, and overcompensating for it. That only makes admiration alomst impossible.
If we were to return to ST Voyager, Captain Janeway is faced with multiple dilemmas, such as half her crew being Maquis, her ship thrown to the other side of the galaxy, trying to return home with limited resources at base, and new dilemmas every day, many with no good answer. Yet here in the slightly goofy world of positron reflection matrixes and temporal scattering networks, you have a character that you grow to love as a character.
This is similar to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in the Alien series.
But now in Star Wars, the Last Jedi, No one gives a damn about Rey, Vice Admiral Holdo, and Rose Tico is sort of a latter day JarJar Binks. They aren't empathetic characters, and they are pretty obnoxious to boot.
Also, you must make a woman the most important character, even so far as to have the other male characters admit that they are inadequate (which is rare in reality, why put yourself down when you're also part of the team?)
The other half of the equation. Rather than have an inferior character be inferior as part of the plot, they are inferior bacause they are male. This detracts from the story line.
It's like as women are being told they're this much more important in our culture, a kind of subconscious "imposter syndrome" is happening with the way female roles are written. I don't like it because the confidence feels shoehorned in, probably by people who have no idea what it feels like to be a confident person in the first place.
Exactly. This is beginning to sound a bit like an extension of the self esteem movement welded to narcissism for girls. And it simply does not work.
So a lot of the failed movies and TV series and such are being written by people who are hoping that no one will notice they can't write truly confident women, only aggressors and sarcastic assholes, because that's the passive-aggressive way of getting power.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but in all the female roles I disliked the most, they had the same weaknesses of character covered up with an asshole mask. (And yes, I mean to critique the roles, not the actresses themselves... sigh...)
The way these roles are written, they look like some sort of mistaken concept of male leadership, a world in which being an asshole is somehow a core requirement, coupled with pointless aggression toward others, and always toward the male of the species.
And they are failing. The message is being rejected. And yet the social justice warriors who have hollywood by the short hairs have a litany of excuses, always based on their declared arch-enemy, the White male.
I will point out some of the incredible character flaws of some of these people As incredibly racist and sexist bigot Mindy Kaling says from The Wrap:
“If I had to base my career on what white men wanted I would be very unsuccessful,
Apparently all the Russian Trolls have excellent English and live in America as American citizens.
Look, if you agree with Disney's and Hollywood's political agenda of feminist superiority, fine. But I know a lot of what the Russkies have done, and the meme is even getting tired for me. What is interesting is the same old same old blame everything but the possibility that you made a politicized movie with a not so good story line that simply isn't enjoyable to watch.
Especially since the people you now cater to don't go to your movies. Multiple times. And buy the critical profitable action figures and toys. I'm curious, did the Russian Trolls get China to pull "The last Jedi" out of theaters?
But enough of the sorry state of Hollywood social Justice driven films.
I've been Netflix watching the old "Star Trek Voyager"series, especially since I've become jaded lately. I for one reason or another never saw it when it was on it's run. And there isn't anything conservative about any Star Trek series. Female captain on a non-conservative Sci-Fi show. I should hate it, amirite?
It was like a freaking breath of fresh air, even if not the best of the ST series. Janeway is a great Captain, managing to be the captain without being what today passes for feminism, which is a lot of whining, complaining and misandrism. She does this while still being a female, not an ersatz male. She reminded me of many of the female scientists I worked with. No one's fool, but not a jerk. That's the kind of strong woman I can get behind. And any politics is very gentle, hidden in the story line, and not whining in your face. Just enjoyable to watch.
Now it is possible that Hollywood will continue their misandry with films that feel the need to replace mixed sex reboots with all female casts, and to make politicized movies espousing their hatred, but when you actively yell "Fuck You" at 49.2 percent of your possible viewers, well, hope they have very very deep pockets.
Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era
> like a drowning man clutches at a straw
Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).
You can read thrust in any direction you want, perhaps in two opposite directions at the same time. And the amount of energy it takes to get that omnidirectional "thrust" is pretty impressive. Personally, I think it is heating effects, and perhaps the magnetic field of the earth interfering. And that's as good a guess as QI.
The EM drive will now live on as youtube videos for the perpetual motion crowd, and the people who believe that you can heat your entire house with a tea candle and a clay pot.
but simply because they're in the group of physicists who has some groupthink, satisfied in what their theories look like so far, and they think this relatively new theory must be wrong --- the physicists are proud of this thing they've contrived that would no longer be necessary.
Nice story I suppose.
But your ideal world of every scientist needing to jump on every new hypothesis as the best thing since sliced bread is the opposite of what is needed to advance science. The skeptics are there to provide the goad to the experimenters to work the proof hard.
If everyone were to say "Hey! Quantum Inertia sounds great!. Therefore the EM engine must be great also!".
The idea of being proud of a construct or concept is more of a political thing than a science thing. Its like hanging on to the concept of Trickle down economics like a drowning man clutches at a straw, while TDE has never been shown to work at all. But those who hold that TDE is true are very happy with the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Meh, I taught my self Morse on the edge of that era with the aid of some free DOS-based software from a BBS. It really wasn't much more of an effort than learning to touch type,
I'll bet I can put you to shame in my technical ability. But I won't because if you are a Ham, you passed the tests.
But I suck at Morse code, probably a combination of deafness, tinmnitus and the result that my brain processes all sounds the same.
So if you passed Morse code easily, you aren't intelligent enought to know it is just a skill that was easy for you.
If you are someone who learned to type Dvorak your mind could easily handle learning Morse.
The great practical advantage of Morse in my mind is that it will get a message through on a poor signal where voice is impossible, and doesn't require any additional modulation equipment beyond what you have on your shoulders to make it work. So I didn't feel the least bit put out that they removed the Morse test soon after I'd put in the work to learn it. I never really understood what the fuss was about really.
Because people like me, who can commit a textbook or manual to memory after reading it one time, were not eligible because I didn't have the psychomotor skills to do what you appear to think is so trivial that any schmo can do it.
Demanding proficiency in a physical activity as a requirement for Ham radio licensing makes as much sense as demanding that a Ham can run a 50 yard dash in under 6 seconds, and shaving a second or two off that requirement for eaxh level of licensing.
Meanwhile if you are happy doing Morse Code, that's great, and I'm glad for you. Me? your Meh is noted. We are fortunate to be living at a time where such greatness as you walks among us lesser beings..
It's always been a mess. I was licensed at age 15 and at age 40 I'm still one of the younger hams at clubs, swaps, etc.. Even back in the early 90's Amateur Radio was the domain of old guys who complained that no-coders weren't real hams.
You're hanging with the wrong people AC.
It's dying today because the hobby is pointless
Find me a hobby that isn't to an outsider.
Oh yeah. Ham radio is "dying", and will be dying for the next hundred years or so.
I've heard that sort of claptrap mostly from three groups:
Old Hams who won't keep up with technology
Hams who listen on the wrong bands at the wrong time, like 80 meters in mid-afternoon, or 20 meters after midnight.
Hams who have remarkably shitty setups.
The first, because so many of their friends are kicking off, the second because "they ain't doing it right".
CW and sideband voice are the lowest common denominator for communications. That's why everyone still uses it. There's definitely a "you first" attitude when it comes to doing anything new. Even the JT modes, which are far superior to CW for weak signal, are resisted. Codec 2 and FreeDV are actually better than SSB but because no one is willing to spend an hour figuring it out it languishes.
http://qso.freedv.org/
Better is so subjective. I've tried FreeDV, and I find it's best attribure is a dead quiet background. The voice quality? Not so much. It does what it does certainly, but pushes the bandwidth so hard that some of us have issues hearing it. But that dead silent digital background comes at a price.
The digital cliff effect. You can hear a weak, scratchy, yet intelligible SSB signal much longer than a digital voice signal is giving you dead quiet silence.
I like JT because of it's ability to work below the noise floor. I especially enjoy WSPR, a propagation tool version of the new modes.
But SSB voice is remarkably efficient for an old school mode, and digital attempts at it don't really improve efficiency.
I say pointless because Morse is the very earliest, not-very-good form of binary communications. Today we have gone far beyond it in binary tech. Let's concentrate on systems that can get TCP/IP through under the most marghinal of conditions, and on organizing for disaster preparedness: area map, stored supplies and parts, secure locations for ham gear, coordination with local emergency services.
The CW crowd is presently up in arms about the digital modes like FT8. We hear from them about how these modes are killing Ham radio.
I suspect they are more upset about losing the claim that they are the best mode for getting through with very weak signals, and the new digital modes regularly work signals below the noise floor.
A method of getting through the noise floor is killing Ham Radio? How rational!
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place. They just want to take, take, take and return nothing. Barriers to entry are a good thing. You don't want the Great Unwashed to spoil your good thing. That's how we ended up with Brexit.
It wasn't a free pass for know nothings to join. You still would have had to take the theory test, which if you take a look at is no walk in the park
A lot of Hams look at today's tests and think "Any old asshole could pass that test.
And guess what? I've done the research after listening to the olde fartes bitch and moan about giving licenses away in cereal boxes.
The results? Aside from removing vacuum tube questions, the level of the tests is just similar.
Why the bitching and moaning? The incredibly brilliant olde tymers who suffered the incredibly difficult test regimen under the steely eyed FCC examiner simply didn't know as much at the time. In the following years they learned more. But they forgot that they learned more over time, so the very similar tests that any asshole can pass means they might have been the assholes themselves. It just looks much easier because of accumulated knowledge
In reality not, it is just the selective memory of old guy syndrome, the glee they get from becoming incredibly angry about incredibly trivial things.
For people like me, who are largely deaf, it isn't any fun
You can learn it visually. Just watch an LED blink. Your brain will soon learn the patterns, and you will be able to recognize entire words and phrases reflexively.
I learned Morse code visually, by watching the signal lamps used for ship-to-ship communication. There wasn't much else to do on a long deployment.
You're correct, because I can do it visually, just not at very high speed.
Barriers to entry are a good thing.
Barriers to entry are good if they involve a relevant and useful skill.
For instance, handling emergency braking in a turn would be a useful skill to require of car drivers. Requiring them to calculate a square root is not, since that has nothing to do with driving.
Morse code is useless. How do I know? Because I know Morse code. Haven't used it in decades.
I wouldn't call it completely useless, although I largely agree. It is slow, and is merely a psychomotor ability. For people like me, who are largely deaf, it isn't any fun, and while I an copy a clean signal FB, add noise to it, and my brain, which attempts to process noise at the same importance as intelligence carried in the tones, simply screws up.
It took me the better part of a year to learn Morse code. Which was painful for a guy who reads a manual or textbook once and commits it to memory.
Morse Code acumen is more a hazing ritual than anything else.
I don't know, I've been on the other side of that "let's let everyone with a belly button in" attitude before. It doesn't end well. You get a bunch of jerks who don't understand and who don't care what made the community great in the first place. They just want to take, take, take and return nothing. Barriers to entry are a good thing. You don't want the Great Unwashed to spoil your good thing. That's how we ended up with Brexit.
Have you read of some of the great on-air brawls of the past? All performed by old school higher speed Morse Code testing and the supposed harder testing in days of yore. People who would be considered elites by the self professed "better hams" of today.
Testing is good. Testing can keep the noob from electrocuting themselves. And in a technical hobby, should simply be expected. But let's not pretend that it is some sort of barrier to assholes.
Side note: One of my favorite little tricks is when some of the Testing makes the superior ham folks are in high dudgeon about their testing, I agree, and tell them that Hams should keep up on technology, and suggest that in order to keep their license, all hams should be re-tested every 5 years.
The reaction is precious. Turns out the folks who were licensed in 1970 on tube equipment and haven't learned a thing since them get a little upset with that idea.
It's ironic because these days people complain that the hobby is dying because there's mostly only old timers left; the old timers basically dug their own grave because of their clique-ish nature over morse code requirements,
Cool story dude!
I like to open up several slices on my radio and show just how Ham Radio is "dying".
Sometimes I wonder if these people understand propagation or just have shitty antennas. Mine are good, not the best, but good.
Because what my slices show is a lot of activity - even CW, which I don't use much because of virtual deafness.
Now that being said, your post sounds like a fine example of grouchy old man syndrome. You'd be a hit in certain circles that haunt 80 meters
Not true... I'm a member of the Dutch radio amateur association, VERON. Most I see are around 55-65, not 70-80. There are quite a few 40-ish and at the main (national) level there is an active youth commission.
The basic demographics have changed. As in many other hobbies or avocations, people are waiting before licensing and activitiy.
The stereotype Olde farte Ham who got his license when he was ten years old is a vanishing breed.
The more modern version is a ham who waited until his or her children have been largely raised to become involved. This is also true of my other hobby of Amateur Astronomy. I was 46 when I was first licensed, and 47 when I earned my Extra.
And what does this mean? Just that the average age of active Amateurs is older.
As for the hobby, it is only something to joke about. Amateurs in general are a diverse group with diverse outlooks and diverse technical acumen.
Some folks like to point at one group and if that group amuses them, try to apply the meme to everyone.
We have our wanna-be first responders, the whackers. We have our olde fartes on 80 meters, lamenting that the south lost the civil war. We have our Appliance Operators, who have nice equipment but haven't a clue how it works. We have our Morse Code uber alles operators
We also have experimenters and weak signal fans, and our own maker branch.
My own interests are in making devices, digital communication, and weak signal work. Although I have a lot of radios, my flagship is a Flex Radio running SmartSDR software. It is a server with an RF front end.
You mean cheap people.
2. Don't ever help anyone
3. When your employer finds out you refuse to help people, especially if it is part of your job. They will promote you and shower you with CEO level money.
Protip: Tell your boss to go fuck himself, and expose yourself to the ladies in HR, and grab a few of their butts while you are at it. The company will be your oyster.
Anything might be a bio weapon. this is a bit bonkers. Just as any high energy physics, rocketry, encryption algorithm, or computer could be a weapon and probably is.
On a few occasions, I think my farts were just that.
I can't even follow your line of thinking here. All I did was point out that Rey was deemed a Mary Sue despite having far fewer of the traits of a Mary Sue character than Luke, and Luke wasn't. Therefore she has a reasonable complaint about being treated differently, although we can debate how much that is due to sexism and how much due to other factors.
Sorry, allow me to be blunt. I dismiss your assessment that Luke is a Marty Sue. I dismiss anyone's suggestion that Calling Daisey Ridley's Rey character a Mary Sue is indicative of sexism. Marty Su or Mary Sue has nothing to do with sex.
And since Mary Sue or Marty Sue is in no way based on sex other than the first name. Utilizing the term is in no way sexist, any more than drinking white milk or chocolate milk makes a person racist. Non sequitur. She said it was sexist - it was not. If someone said her character was impossible because women are stupid - that would be sexist. And if your assessment of Mark Hamill's character as a Marty Sue is your belief, why don't you tell him that. If you get a reply, it will probably be laughter, not bawling how unfair things are. Perhaps I need to simplfy it more?
Marty Sue/MarySue - not referring to anyone's genitals.
Well she has a point, Luke was much worse than Rey for being brilliant at everything instantly. There does appear to be a double standard there.
I seem to recall Luke having many problems while learning to be a Jedi. He was definitely not instantly brilliant.
And it isn't much of a point when a person takes a name like Mary Sue, which stands for a particular thing, and turns it into something it isn't.
Or perhaps, in illustration of my point,
since you agree that calling Mz Ridley a Mary Sue is sexist.
Then you claim that Mark Hamill's character is the exact definition of a Mary Sue character - Or Marty Sue to be more exact
Then you claim that there is a double standard.
So if a person claims the character Rey is a Mary Sue is an indication of sexism, What is the indication of a person who holds those beliefs, yet then goes on to claim that the Character of Luke Skywalker is a Marty Sue character? speaking of double standards.
And why is genital hardware involved in a non sexual matter? The "Sues" are not sex specific. They are characters like STTNG's Wesley Crusher, who are an irritant in a story line. A wunderkind for whom everything is just so.
The point is that there will be fan criticism for any movie. This is not because being critical means that you hate the movie. On the contrary, the fan criticism is based on loving the series. There was fan criticism of the mentally challenged JarJar Binks Character. There was fan criticism of the Ewoks taking down a modern technological fighting force with sticks and stones. There was criticism of the Empire's soldier's not being able to shoot straight.
It does not mean that the Binks critics hate people who are mentally challenged. It doesn't mean people hate beavers or teddy bears. It doesn't mean that people hate bad shots in white plastic outfits.
And trying to make a non-sex based criticism into one is showing some biases of their own.
No, as noted before in post a long while back, the problem that arose isn't Russian bots, or those pesky white males who ruin everything, but Disney and Kennedy and Johnson choosing to belittle and mock the very people who are responsible for the money they take in. Have you ever seen a Star Wars fan's den? They spend a lot of money on their favorite series. They are passionate in discussing what they like or don't like. The go to the same movie several times. But they have been designated as the enemy by Disney et al.
Complaints mean people are watching. Complaints mean that someone cared enough to make the complaint. And even if a producer of a film disagrees with the complaint, they should listen, and if a sensible complaint, take it as advisement.
When the complaints stop, it doesn't mean you won the battle with your enemies H^H^H^H^H^H^ erm fans. It means your enemy stopped being interested.
Enter Star Wars Solo.
Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era
> like a drowning man clutches at a straw
Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).
I forgot to ask - should we eliminate corporate taxes and pay the wages that they receive in India?
But othere than the name, Mary Sue, the term has nothing to do with the hardware between a person's legs. Why, there are Marty Sues, and Gary Sues. The concept is the same always.
A character for whom everything just happens. Wesley Crusher in Star Trek TNG is a perfect example. And like all of the "Sues" he was damn annoying.
the message is crystal clear. Brittle, over sensitive prima donnas that simply cannot handle anything but effusive praise, and go nuts as they consider any criticism as a personal attack that must be whined about, and pull out pejorative terms they keep as bludgeons.
Mz Ridley does not see the irony in calling her critics all sexist, while she goes nuts over her character being called a Mary Sue. I believe the old term is she can dish it out, but cannot take it.
Go to Youtube. Search Last Jedi
Don't fall for that. There is usually more meta-outrage on YouTube than there was actual outrage in the first place.
Kennedy and Johnson do not consider complaints as a gift (so few do these days)
But they are gifts.
We don't have to respond to criticisms by making demanded changes, indeed on my own projects, I often get diametrcically opposed demands, so someone gets left out. But I do thank each and every critic for their input. And if their input makes sense, I change it, and tell them I appreciate the good idea.
This does not fly with some people Way back in Rogue one days, when asked about the perceived political correctness of having another female lead in what was historically a male dominated series - apparently forgetting that the Princess Leia was a lead, Kennedy apparently took it badly:
"I have a responsibility to the company that I work with. I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. I would never just seize on saying, 'Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to men for many, many years, and therefore I owe men something.'"
Okay, well, her answer didn't really answer the question, but it does show her focus. source https://screenrant.com/star-wa...
Rian Johnson has apparently been "Expertly shutting down Fans" in this positive piece, which priases the rejection of the peopel who give you their money. http://www.digitalspy.com/movi... He also spent a fair amount of time mocking fans, and calling them manbabies.
The point is that Lucasfilm and Disney apparently do not need people to go to the movies any more. If I responded to my sponsors when they had a criticism telling them I do not need to cater to them or mocking them - I would go broke.
Disney and Kennedy et al, apparently do not need to profit, only to make films and throw shade at those who would dare to not march in lockstep with them
And none of the cites come from FaceBook.
That's what I liked about the "next generation" Star Trek series. Sometimes you don't even realize how awesome an individual woman is because she FITS with the ensemble. They don't need to stick out 100% of the time to be an essential part of the crew because they (as most strong women) are confident in themselves.
This depiction of confidence has been lost in more recent years.
Very insightful. I think this points to something that is perhaps jarring about modern female Leads. More on that below.
It's been replaced by this strange NEED to stick out and be prominent above being part of a team, unable to work in the background for no fanfare and yet know you are doing something important.
And this would put a firm understanding on what I was originally saying was obnoxious about the modern female characters. While I wasjust thinking they were obnoxious, this concept nails it. They are insecure, and overcompensating for it. That only makes admiration alomst impossible.
If we were to return to ST Voyager, Captain Janeway is faced with multiple dilemmas, such as half her crew being Maquis, her ship thrown to the other side of the galaxy, trying to return home with limited resources at base, and new dilemmas every day, many with no good answer. Yet here in the slightly goofy world of positron reflection matrixes and temporal scattering networks, you have a character that you grow to love as a character.
This is similar to Sigourney Weaver's Ripley in the Alien series.
But now in Star Wars, the Last Jedi, No one gives a damn about Rey, Vice Admiral Holdo, and Rose Tico is sort of a latter day JarJar Binks. They aren't empathetic characters, and they are pretty obnoxious to boot.
Also, you must make a woman the most important character, even so far as to have the other male characters admit that they are inadequate (which is rare in reality, why put yourself down when you're also part of the team?)
The other half of the equation. Rather than have an inferior character be inferior as part of the plot, they are inferior bacause they are male. This detracts from the story line.
It's like as women are being told they're this much more important in our culture, a kind of subconscious "imposter syndrome" is happening with the way female roles are written. I don't like it because the confidence feels shoehorned in, probably by people who have no idea what it feels like to be a confident person in the first place.
Exactly. This is beginning to sound a bit like an extension of the self esteem movement welded to narcissism for girls. And it simply does not work.
So a lot of the failed movies and TV series and such are being written by people who are hoping that no one will notice they can't write truly confident women, only aggressors and sarcastic assholes, because that's the passive-aggressive way of getting power.
There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but in all the female roles I disliked the most, they had the same weaknesses of character covered up with an asshole mask. (And yes, I mean to critique the roles, not the actresses themselves... sigh...)
The way these roles are written, they look like some sort of mistaken concept of male leadership, a world in which being an asshole is somehow a core requirement, coupled with pointless aggression toward others, and always toward the male of the species.
And they are failing. The message is being rejected. And yet the social justice warriors who have hollywood by the short hairs have a litany of excuses, always based on their declared arch-enemy, the White male.
I will point out some of the incredible character flaws of some of these people As incredibly racist and sexist bigot Mindy Kaling says from The Wrap:
“If I had to base my career on what white men wanted I would be very unsuccessful,
Search Last Jedi
Apparently all the Russian Trolls have excellent English and live in America as American citizens.
Look, if you agree with Disney's and Hollywood's political agenda of feminist superiority, fine. But I know a lot of what the Russkies have done, and the meme is even getting tired for me. What is interesting is the same old same old blame everything but the possibility that you made a politicized movie with a not so good story line that simply isn't enjoyable to watch.
Especially since the people you now cater to don't go to your movies. Multiple times. And buy the critical profitable action figures and toys. I'm curious, did the Russian Trolls get China to pull "The last Jedi" out of theaters?
But enough of the sorry state of Hollywood social Justice driven films.
I've been Netflix watching the old "Star Trek Voyager"series, especially since I've become jaded lately. I for one reason or another never saw it when it was on it's run. And there isn't anything conservative about any Star Trek series. Female captain on a non-conservative Sci-Fi show. I should hate it, amirite?
It was like a freaking breath of fresh air, even if not the best of the ST series. Janeway is a great Captain, managing to be the captain without being what today passes for feminism, which is a lot of whining, complaining and misandrism. She does this while still being a female, not an ersatz male. She reminded me of many of the female scientists I worked with. No one's fool, but not a jerk. That's the kind of strong woman I can get behind. And any politics is very gentle, hidden in the story line, and not whining in your face. Just enjoyable to watch.
Now it is possible that Hollywood will continue their misandry with films that feel the need to replace mixed sex reboots with all female casts, and to make politicized movies espousing their hatred, but when you actively yell "Fuck You" at 49.2 percent of your possible viewers, well, hope they have very very deep pockets.
Tickle Down Economics worked just fine in the 90s. Reagan advanced the theory, put it into motion with corporate tax deductions, and it led to a gigantic boom during the Clinton Era
> like a drowning man clutches at a straw
Possibly TDE is wrong. On the flip side, taxing corporations to death has never been shown to accomplish anything (except drive corporations out of the Northern Rustbelt USA into China and India where labor & taxes are cheap).
Deficit spending was Reagan's economy stimulus.
Physicists said the Em Drive was "Impossible" then NASA tested it and it worked.
https://www.cnet.com/news/theo...
https://www.space.com/40682-em...
You are using old data. Here: https://www.sciencealert.com/i...
You can read thrust in any direction you want, perhaps in two opposite directions at the same time. And the amount of energy it takes to get that omnidirectional "thrust" is pretty impressive. Personally, I think it is heating effects, and perhaps the magnetic field of the earth interfering. And that's as good a guess as QI. The EM drive will now live on as youtube videos for the perpetual motion crowd, and the people who believe that you can heat your entire house with a tea candle and a clay pot.
but simply because they're in the group of physicists who has some groupthink, satisfied in what their theories look like so far, and they think this relatively new theory must be wrong --- the physicists are proud of this thing they've contrived that would no longer be necessary.
Nice story I suppose.
But your ideal world of every scientist needing to jump on every new hypothesis as the best thing since sliced bread is the opposite of what is needed to advance science. The skeptics are there to provide the goad to the experimenters to work the proof hard.
If everyone were to say "Hey! Quantum Inertia sounds great!. Therefore the EM engine must be great also!".
The idea of being proud of a construct or concept is more of a political thing than a science thing. Its like hanging on to the concept of Trickle down economics like a drowning man clutches at a straw, while TDE has never been shown to work at all. But those who hold that TDE is true are very happy with the idea.
This IS real science. A theory + experiments to disprove (or not) that theory.
Well, closer to a hypothesis than a theory. But science indeed.
Now I don't know about QI in general, but the EM drive is heading along the same path as cold fusion did.
But we don't find out unless we test.