You mean it takes someone with a little intelligence to investigate? Wow!
Great way to become a monopoly is to get the government to legislate it for you. This smells like it. How much did Microsoft slip under the table to High Tech Crime Investigation Association for this nugget?
I don't think the FCC is ready for it. There has been a lot of talk about restructuring already, some even by the ARRL, but it never seems to make it the way the amateur community intended. Have a look at http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/restrux2-p etition.pdf. It says a lot of the same words I do, and the intent is the same as my view. In fact, it is much more liberal with the entry level license than what I propose. The FCC addressed it in this new NPRM and denied keeping the code requirement for Extra class. Their discussion of the restructuring indicated that they felt comfortable with what now exists, that they simply want to eliminate Morse code because it is no longer required by ITU and they have no good arguments, in their opinion, to keep it.
If we take a look at the ARRL petition, I believe the difference between what the ARRL proposed and my opinion is that I propose eliminating Citizen Band and making it part of the Amateur Radio service, that we introduce endorsements that may carry incremental privilege gains, and that emergency operations and homeland security become a focus path to satisfy the service intent that underlies amateur radio. Clearly, the FCC does not want to get involved with the community service aspect, but stays focused on "advancement of the radio art," a phrase that is used several times in the NPRM. Also, I feel comfortable in saying that the FCC would prefer certificates issued by organizations such as the ARRL instead of endorsements and remain a regulatory and rule making body.
I exceptionally doubt that they would agree to the introduction of a new class and band. I also think they would not like the idea of endorsements. However, it wouldn't hurt for me to write a petition for rule making, and may do so even if I do feel that the probability of success would be very low. I will be addressing the NPRM in the mean time, specifically regarding the license class restructuring.
It's funny that we're both about the same age and have similar ideas. See my post "Time for a change." In fact, sounds as though our backgrounds are similar as well, right down to the computers. I don't, however, have mixed feelings.
We need to create endorsements to encourage people to develop skills and not keep them out of the hobby. We also need to keep in sight the fact that it is Amateur Radio Service, and should make service our priority. What this means is that we should not get hung up on Morse code. Plenty of emergency communications is carried out using 2 meter or 440 hand held radios. We do, however, need a pool of people who can string up a long wire, pop a tuner on it and run low power emergency communications after that tsunami or earthquake hits. We need them to be skilled at emergency traffic handling as well, which is why I think that an emergency endorsement should be introduced as well.
I also propose we bring 11 meters back into the fold. Make that the "bozo filter" that has been mentioned elsewhere, if need be. Personally, I think we already have it with 75 meter phone, but that's just my opinion and I digress. If we were to reintroduce 11 meters as an amateur band, I think that we would see a lot of companies bring back old designs and target a new market. If it takes off, we'll see a lot of innovation that will drive the cost of radios down. It will also eliminate the illegal amplifier ban that simply does not work. Go to eBay and do a search for amplifiers. Yeah, right, those amplifiers are targeting the amateur radio market, but that's not the point.
A no code, no theory amateur radio license for 11 meter operation would make a perfect entry point into amateur radio, and expand from there. We can structure licenses so that endorsements would encourage the growth we need. It is a better model that fits society in the 21st century.
When I was a boy, I had to walk 200 miles in the snow, with no boots, just to tune the antenna... Oops! Sorry, when I get into this part of my amateur radio story I get carried away.;-)
I started with a Novice ticket after passing a written exam and a 5 WPM code exam. Later, I went for my Advanced class license after passing a 13 WPM code test and two written exams back to back. I was going for my General, but figured I try the Advanced while I was there. Passed that and held an Advanced for many years before going for the Extra class exam. That was after the 20 WPM requirement was dropped.
The morning I walked in to take the tests for my Advanced class license, I could copy around 20 WPM and practiced with the ARRL bulletin at 18 WPM that morning. This was in 1972 and it was scored by handing in a sheet of paper where you wrote down what you copied. You had to show 1 continuous minute of correct copy, i.e., the equivalent of 13 five letter words with not a single letter error anywhere in that stretch. While I probably qualified, I didn't go for my Extra because there was a General class or higher requirement with demonstration of on the air activity at the time.
Given my background, I really don't feel that 5 WPM is a tough requirement, especially with multiple choice tests. If you copied anything at all, simple test taking skills will carry you through to pass the test. I don't feel sorry for newcomers when they balk at the code test. However, opinions based on these emotions cloud the issue.
My point is simple. I'm a middle aged male in his early 50s. I've been an engineer for around 30 years and a ham a few years longer than that. At the last local club meeting, I looked around and noted that I was probably one of the younger members. That alone has to tell me something. I think it's that we need change.
There has always been a reason for the exams. They were not put in place just to prevent young people from entering the hobby. When the content was developed, Morse code was still a very valid method of communications, and the majority of amateur radio operations were indeed carried out with CW. The highly technical written exams were necessary because a large percentage of the amateur radio community had to build their equipment. Even by the time I got my license this was no longer true.
Things are different today. The code test is only a hurtle to jump on your way to getting your ticket. The majority of hams get their licenses and never touches a key again. Most people then run out and buy a radio, cable and antenna and forget all the electronics they had to learn. They are now what used to be called "appliance operators." The exams are no longer valid, given the state of the amateur radio community, old timers included.
We need growth. The mindset of those we'd like to attract is different than that same age group when I was considered to be a part of it. They want to communicate, that's why chat rooms and services such as AOL Instant Messenger chat are popular. They want to experiment with digital communications and computer applications. They look at the radio equipment as a modem, and probably rightly so. While there's still a lot to experiment with at the RF level that satisfies these needs, i.e., software defined radio, there's much more room to experiment in station control, measurement, digital modulation, coding and information theory. We, as a community, need to adapt.
However, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the reason we exist is to serve the public. Morse code is a valid means of communications in emergencies, and we should still use it. While I'm calling for a change, it should still be part the rules. We need to leave spectrum allocation for CW in place. There should be a license endorsement for passing a Morse code test, to encourage people to at least learn Morse code so that they can help in emergencies. In fact, while not relevant to this particular thr
Don't know who the fool was that limited distance to 150 miles. When I first started in amateur radio, I used a Heathkit HW-101 driving a Lafayette Radio Electronics CB ground plane and worked the US, Europe, Africa (right into South Africa). I know 11 meters will certainly behave the same, and getting folks turned on to a little "DXing" would most certainly help get people into amateur radio.
Additionally, in the post 9/11 world, we're all worried about terrorism in the US. I'm limiting this discussion to FCC for now, but this most certainly applies globally, especially in light of the recent London bombings. To have something like REACT come alive again and aligned with ARRL would be a good idea as well.
I had thought of filing this idea several times now. Maybe I should do it. I would be awfully surprised if Hollingsworth doesn't at least entertan the idea.
Well, I don't sit around talking about my hemorrhoids while eating prunes, as some here posted. I was first licensed in 1969, and hold the same call sign since 1972. Guess what, I'm the guy up high enough in the company to decide whether or not you get to practice all that new knowledge your brand new CS degree says you have. You'd be surprised to find where all those old farts are in business. Oh yeah, I'm a well known open source contributor as well. So much for all that "only new brains can be creative" crap typical on/.
(rant mode off)
Hopefully, the preceding rant will attract attention and folks will read on. I'm not going to rehash how amateur radio is there in emergencies, how local hams contributed to 9/11 or the last devastating weather event, earthquake, etc. Nor am I going to debate internet versus amateur radio. These are tangents to the real discussion.
As I mentioned, I learned Morse code a long time ago. Frankly, I found that I could do 5 WPM by simply memorizing the dits and dahs and matching them to what I heard. Most of the hams I know would probably agree as to how simple 5 WPM really is, but that should not be a reason to keep the code requirement.
I think that most hams see it as a barrier to entry, not for people who want to be hams, but all those morons who rush out to buy CB radios and want to play "good buddy" with all the truckers. I can safely say that no ham will ever tell anyone who is interested in amateur radio to go away. In fact, most hams I know talk about how to attract more young people into the hobby. No real ham will stand in your way. If he or she does, I'd like to see that individual's license taken away, not support the individual.
For me, amateur radio was how I got hooked into getting an engineering degree. Even now, it is a place for me to experiment with hardware and software in communications settings. By September, I'll have an experimental software defined radio on the air and have some fun as I learn some new stuff. Do I need Morse Code for this? Of course not.
Will I use Morse Code in the future? Sure will. In fact, as more and more people forget code, I'll cherish my ability as something that differentiates me from the masses. In fact, after a long hiatus, I just recently returned to code and enjoy every minute of it.
As a ham, I think the code requirement is dated. It doesn't really stop morons from getting on the air. A scan of the 75 meter QSOs any evening should help you get over your fears that no code will allow irresponsible individuals to run rampant and spoil the hobby. I would not advocate removing the code only portions of the HF bands, which is the next logical step in this process. CW and other digital modes need the spectrum allocation to prevent potential interference from the wider bandwidth modes.
In a related step, I'd like to see 11 meters taken back into amateur radio as a band for an entry level, no test license. Other, better services exist to fill the need CB radio originally addressed and 11 meters would make a great place to get people interested in the hobby.
I used to work for a very large computer company until about a week ago. I was transferred from a really great group to one that was headed up by a real a**hole. He took an immediate dislike towards me and turned a job I loved into hell. I've spent that last three years trying to make a go of it, and finally gave up.
Last week I had enough of him and the petty politics in the group, lab and between labs, so I left with only a promise from another employer. I was unemployed for about five minutes until I got the verbal offer after I quit.
Leaving without another job was something I've never done before, but it really didn't make a difference. I figured out that I could live on a smaller salary, and that by changing my mindset I could not only survive but thrive.
Why am I bucking conventional wisdom? Simple. I watched many peers and friends get marched out the door after getting fired (laid off, downsized, rightsized, participate in work force reduction program, etc.). There are no guarantees in working for any company. In fact, it's just a false sense of security because you can loose your job quite easily because some bozo didn't make a sale or miscalculated margins.
Here's what you need to keep in mind. You're not necessarily looking for a new job as much as planning your financial future. If it means two part time jobs instead of a full time one, great. If you have enough degrees to teach, do that and consult as well. Think of yourself as a business, devise a business plan and do a proforma analysis of your financial future, including cash flow. Once you have a plan, follow it. There may be less risk here than staying at your current job.
I got lucky. Everything fell into place. I'm now working full time with a consulting company, and I got a pay increase to boot. I don't think I would have done it if I hadn't stopped thinking as an employee. I don't know what the future holds, but I'm excited and happier.
My advice to you is look at all options, plan your next step and act on that plan. It could be either a new job, or a new business. Don't let emotions get in the way, and don't limit your thinking to simply being an employee. The bottom line is how much money can you make and will it be something agreeable.
I have many years of music training, play keyboard (piano, synthesizer), and guitar (acoustic, bass, electric). I studied music at the undergraduate level, even though my undergraduate degree is EE. I've composed songs and jingles. But after listening to this collection of "new holiday classics," I can tell you that this misses the mark. I can see why many feel that this stuff was terrible.
If you wanted it for some cheesy, B grade sci fi channel original movie, this is great. But for a holiday collection, boy, did you screw up. You would have been better off with Mozart's Musical Dice than this algorithm. In fact, there is such a high repetition of certain sequences that you can barely tell one composition from another.
Go back and try again. And take this stuff off the web site. It's trash.
Urban myth. AIX had nothing to do with Tru64, aka OSF/1. There were DEC, HP and IBM copyrights in there because of the joint development effort, i.e., each contributed code.
They're not based on the same code. Tru64 came from OSF/1 which was a clean room rewrite of Unix, back when AT&T was the evil OS overlord. It was written by IBM, HP and DEC. Only Digital stuck with it, and renamed it twice: OSF/1 -> Digital UNIX -> [Digital|Compaq|HP] Tru64. And that's the point, that they are so incompatible that the task was monumental in the way HP approached it.
The best bet would be to initially target it at FPGAs like the Xilinx devices. There are already a number of SoC and 8 bit processors on these devices.
Unfortunately, 64 bits is a killer because of internal bus widths and, of course, internal registers will take up many cells, limiting what you can do on a single device. Still, it would be interesting to try.
Well, I'm still out of it. Seems that if the FAA has denied you a 3rd class, you have to successfully pass a 3rd class. Two flaws with this logic:
1. If the FAA knows you have a condition, i.e., diabetes, and it's in control but not with an approved drug, you're out. If they don't know you have it, and you don't have it under control, especially with instances of hypoglycemia, then you can get the new license because you have a driver's license.
How is it that I'm a menace but the other individual is not? Oh, I get it, it's the ostrich approach to managing public safety.
2. If I pass my 3rd class, why bother with a sport license if I can go right back to private?
I should have known that the FAA would screw it up somehow.
This is good news for people like me who used to fly but had to give up our licenses due to overly restrictive Third Class Medical requirements.
I know there will be lot's of critics here, all spouting off about 9/11, but that's nonsense. Flying a small aircraft into a target does not cause similar damage. That was proven shortly after 9/11 when a teenager in Florida killed himself after trying to duplicate the events of 9/11, and it was a bigger plane than what is permitted by this new class of license.
As for using it to carry a bomb, another criticism frequently heard, this also is of no merit. The original World Trade Center attack was done with explosives in a van, similar to the Oklahoma City event. You can bring an explosive in a briefcase as well, possibly even a small nuclear device. You don't need an aircraft for that.
Finally, passing legislation allowing the FAA to oversee ultralights is a good thing. Previously, it was self regulated, with almost nothing in the FAR about them. This now allows the agency to oversee safety where there was previously no one there to do so. This may be bad, as well as good, because the FAA is not known for its speed when it comes to certification, but will help the general aviation industry and sport pilots in the long run.
As for pilot training for terrorists, I don't see anyone chasing after Microsoft for Flight Simulator...
It's called a field strength meter, and can be made with a diode, capacitor and typically an analog meter. When the needle deflects, you have electromagnetic energy in the area. Add one or more tuned circuits to it and you narrow it down to the cell phone band(s).
I'd rather have a good productivity
suite aimed at Linux and better commercial level documentation than just something that allows me to run Microsoft apps. Yeah,
yeah, I know that there are other products that are tied to the Microsoft OS base, but those will eventually migrate as well.
There is a lot of inertia in the commercial software market. It takes years for apps to catch up. Why do you think it took such a
long time for the DOS based Windows transition? It took a long time to get all the hardware manufacturers to write drivers, ISVs to qualify their apps, and in some cases finally port it to 32 bits, etc. With the current, very positive, Linux trend, there are a lot of hardware and software companies taking a serious look and targeting Linux. It just takes time.
As far as project David goes, one big downfall is that they are copying existing Windows APIs. New APIs are under development right now for release in Longhorn and beyond. The project David folks have to wait until they're released to find out about the changes. Then they have to scurry about and put those changes into project
David. What makes them think that they're any smarter or faster than the developers at Microsoft in order to do this in less time? By the time they catch up, the cycle will repeat itself. Never underestimate your enemy. It is better to be surprised by his stupidity than by his cleverness."
They are much more fortunate than the original Wine developers because they don't have to suffer through the awkward win32 transitional period, and have Wine as an example to study to boot. The Wine developers had nothing.
My hats off to the Wine folks, and a big yawn for project David.
I'm way older than David Wong, and part of the original gamers. We were the ones transitioning from pinball machines through Pong to the original video games like like Space Invaders and such.
Guess what, technology marched on, and allowed companies like Atari and Coleco to offer new, challenging games at home. At about the same time my kid brother grew up, and he started on the next wave of games like the original Nintendo. Now my kids play the new consoles, GBA, etc.
Gaming is a form of entertainment that will continue. At one time it was a little silver ball, aided by gravity, bouncing around. Now it's very tiny pixels on a screen. When 3D displays become real, games will probably take advantage of that and in the future, who knows? Maybe everyone will devote their basements to virtual gaming ala Star Trek holodeck instead of pool tables and Mame consoles.
Markets, video game or otherwise, always change, and the companies that can make it happen will replace the ones that can't. The death of those companies doesn't signal the death of the industry. Instead it's a sign of the transformation of the market.
I was on a grand jury at one time, and got to hear cases like this. This seems to be a situation where Pat Richard may or may not be in trouble. It all depends on state law, how it is written, and how the grand jury interprets the law.
In my opinion, the charges are ludicrous. The extortion charge won't stick, based on "750.213 Malicious threats to extort money." According to that law, a malicious threat of injury, accusation of a crime or a threat that causes a modification of a person's behavior has to be demonstrated. In neither of the links does anything remotely resemble that. Additionally, the obstruction of justice charge listed is really "750.505 Punishment for indictable common law offenses," which is a Michigan catchall for throwing the book at someone.
Since the prosecutor seems squarely behind this one, I certainly wouldn't take anything lightly. However, I don't think this will be as bad as it sounds. Most likely, this will simply be remanded to a lower court and be reduced to a civil suit filed against the state, not Pat Richard. Hopefully, Pat Richard will learn from this and study a little contract law, in order to make better decisions in the future.
If every open source project officially revokes SCO's license, they'd loose quite a bit. I think they would loose their TCP/IP support, if I recall correctly, because it is the BSD stack. Someone else already mentioned Apache yanking their licenses.
SCO also has a linux emulation API. At least at one point during this legal battle, SCO argued that the Linux API was embodied in Linux, and that this constituted an infringement on their copyright. However, SCO conveniently forgets about their Linux Kernel Personality. According to the SCO web site, "This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the RPMs needed to run most Linux applications." So, anyone who owns code in these RPMs should also yank their code, crippling the SCO Unixware distribution. This could cause a major disruption in SCO's business, if properly executed.
Finally, I submit that Linus Torvalds should sue SCO for improperly incorporating the API into the SCO kernel and/or system libraries. The theory is that they could not have done this without viewing the code, and by doing so the code they've written is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Properly executed, this could kill SCO altogether. Wouldn't that be enjoyable to watch.
I scanned through the lists, and found quite a few single line entires in the table. I decided to look one up, specifically net/bridge/br_stp.c. Here's the offending line:
p = br->port_list;
If it wasn't for the history behind this, I'd have to laugh out loud. The only conclusion I can come to is that the majority of the claim comes from structure/union definitions in header files, and they extend it to C files wherever a structure/union member is referenced.
If I get some time, I may do an analysis of the list and determine exactly how little this case actually has to do with IP theft.
Let me start out by saying that I am
not a lawyer, so everything stated here is my opinion only. Seek
legal counsel before acting on anything expressed in the following.
Besides, you'd be a darn fool taking legal advice from comments on a
web page.
There are simple inaccuracies throughout the entire document:
SCO initially was a distributor of Xenix, an early port of UNIX
to Intel 8086, 80286 and 80386 processors, among others, i.e. Motorola
68000 series, developed by Microsoft. While they paint a
picture that they, SCO, were the initiators of such action resulting
from recognition of a marketplace, it was Microsoft who recognized the
need for an business class operating system and developed it, not
SCO. Therefore, paragraphs 35 through 39 are fabricated
misrepresentations meant to color the opinion of the reader. What
they are is an obvious attempt at supporting the prerequisite victim
position for SCO.
SCO paints Linux as a predatory action taken by Linus Torvalds
against Unix. Paragraphs 75 and 78 depict Linux as a vehicle for
a hidden agenda by stating that "Linux is not just a "clone," but is
intended as a successor to UNIX System V." Furthermore, in
support of this, Linus shows his hidden agenda through "a significant
flaw of Linux " because of "the inability and/or unwillingness of the
Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual
property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those
many different software developers."
There are two things very wrong with the above. First, SCO
implied that Linux is a clone of UNIX, and totally ignored the
publicly, and widely known fact that Linus started his work from Minix,
another UNIX like operating system developed independent of the
AT&T UNIX code base. Second, the use of the phrasing
"inability and/or unwillingness" are inflammatory, meant to convey an
inept, and possibly hostile, Linus Torvalds image to the reader, to
support the claimed predatory action.
Paragraphs 80 through 83, inclusive, lay claims that Linux was
immature, but that it was impossible to create a work alike operating
system without the help of IBM, who had access to the source
code. Again, this ignores the existence of other operating
systems such as Minix, which is a "clone" but has no roots whatsoever
in AT&T code, and commercial operating systems such as Whitesmith's
Idris, an early UNIX clone.
Furthermore, they claim that hobbyists could not make Linux into an
enterprise operating system without IBM because the hobbyists lacked
the hardware necessary to do so. This completely ignores the
early involvement of Digital Equipment Corporation who donated
workstation and server equipment to Linus Torvalds in order to help
grow Linux.
They claim in paragraph 84 that IBM schemed to unfairly dominate
the market by using Linux. This completely ignores the fact that
every other major vendor, SCO and Caldera included, were also
attempting to gain market share and momentum by jumping on the Linux
bandwagon concurrently with IBM. In fact, it would have been
unfair if IBM had used a common Linux mechanism where proprietary
code is sometimes released, i.e., the kernel module, to release their
enhancements instead of donating it to the open source community where
all IBM competitors, including SCO and Caldera, had access to it.
This unfair, dark attempt at world domination claim continues in
paragraphs 84 through 98, which can only be characterized as a rant.
Interestingly enough, while SCO makes widespread claims, there
are only a small handful of files, ten by my count, that contain lines
of code that SCO claims copyright infringement. Most of these
files are header files, that do not contain actual code but merely
definitions of constants and data structures. Clearly this is not
enough to support their claims of breach of contract through
inappropriate redistribution of intellectual property, and certainly
not enough for copyright infringement.
The idea that the moon is a better launching point than earth seems silly. Unless you can get the resources you need on the moon, you need to ship them from earth. If you can't get 100% efficiency out of every process you use to build your new ships, you'll need to ship more raw materials to the moon than you would have used on Earth. More raw materials = more weight.
So, unless I missed something Bush handed everyone yet another pile of dung to get a lunar base going. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean it takes someone with a little intelligence to investigate? Wow!
Great way to become a monopoly is to get the government to legislate it for you. This smells like it. How much did Microsoft slip under the table to High Tech Crime Investigation Association for this nugget?
I don't think the FCC is ready for it. There has been a lot of talk about restructuring already, some even by the ARRL, but it never seems to make it the way the amateur community intended. Have a look at http://www.arrl.org/news/restructuring2/restrux2-p etition.pdf. It says a lot of the same words I do, and the intent is the same as my view. In fact, it is much more liberal with the entry level license than what I propose. The FCC addressed it in this new NPRM and denied keeping the code requirement for Extra class. Their discussion of the restructuring indicated that they felt comfortable with what now exists, that they simply want to eliminate Morse code because it is no longer required by ITU and they have no good arguments, in their opinion, to keep it.
If we take a look at the ARRL petition, I believe the difference between what the ARRL proposed and my opinion is that I propose eliminating Citizen Band and making it part of the Amateur Radio service, that we introduce endorsements that may carry incremental privilege gains, and that emergency operations and homeland security become a focus path to satisfy the service intent that underlies amateur radio. Clearly, the FCC does not want to get involved with the community service aspect, but stays focused on "advancement of the radio art," a phrase that is used several times in the NPRM. Also, I feel comfortable in saying that the FCC would prefer certificates issued by organizations such as the ARRL instead of endorsements and remain a regulatory and rule making body.
I exceptionally doubt that they would agree to the introduction of a new class and band. I also think they would not like the idea of endorsements. However, it wouldn't hurt for me to write a petition for rule making, and may do so even if I do feel that the probability of success would be very low. I will be addressing the NPRM in the mean time, specifically regarding the license class restructuring.
WB2GBF
It's funny that we're both about the same age and have similar ideas. See my post "Time for a change." In fact, sounds as though our backgrounds are similar as well, right down to the computers. I don't, however, have mixed feelings.
We need to create endorsements to encourage people to develop skills and not keep them out of the hobby. We also need to keep in sight the fact that it is Amateur Radio Service, and should make service our priority. What this means is that we should not get hung up on Morse code. Plenty of emergency communications is carried out using 2 meter or 440 hand held radios. We do, however, need a pool of people who can string up a long wire, pop a tuner on it and run low power emergency communications after that tsunami or earthquake hits. We need them to be skilled at emergency traffic handling as well, which is why I think that an emergency endorsement should be introduced as well.
I also propose we bring 11 meters back into the fold. Make that the "bozo filter" that has been mentioned elsewhere, if need be. Personally, I think we already have it with 75 meter phone, but that's just my opinion and I digress. If we were to reintroduce 11 meters as an amateur band, I think that we would see a lot of companies bring back old designs and target a new market. If it takes off, we'll see a lot of innovation that will drive the cost of radios down. It will also eliminate the illegal amplifier ban that simply does not work. Go to eBay and do a search for amplifiers. Yeah, right, those amplifiers are targeting the amateur radio market, but that's not the point.
A no code, no theory amateur radio license for 11 meter operation would make a perfect entry point into amateur radio, and expand from there. We can structure licenses so that endorsements would encourage the growth we need. It is a better model that fits society in the 21st century.
When I was a boy, I had to walk 200 miles in the snow, with no boots, just to tune the antenna ... Oops! Sorry, when I get into this part of my amateur radio story I get carried away. ;-)
I started with a Novice ticket after passing a written exam and a 5 WPM code exam. Later, I went for my Advanced class license after passing a 13 WPM code test and two written exams back to back. I was going for my General, but figured I try the Advanced while I was there. Passed that and held an Advanced for many years before going for the Extra class exam. That was after the 20 WPM requirement was dropped.
The morning I walked in to take the tests for my Advanced class license, I could copy around 20 WPM and practiced with the ARRL bulletin at 18 WPM that morning. This was in 1972 and it was scored by handing in a sheet of paper where you wrote down what you copied. You had to show 1 continuous minute of correct copy, i.e., the equivalent of 13 five letter words with not a single letter error anywhere in that stretch. While I probably qualified, I didn't go for my Extra because there was a General class or higher requirement with demonstration of on the air activity at the time.
Given my background, I really don't feel that 5 WPM is a tough requirement, especially with multiple choice tests. If you copied anything at all, simple test taking skills will carry you through to pass the test. I don't feel sorry for newcomers when they balk at the code test. However, opinions based on these emotions cloud the issue.
My point is simple. I'm a middle aged male in his early 50s. I've been an engineer for around 30 years and a ham a few years longer than that. At the last local club meeting, I looked around and noted that I was probably one of the younger members. That alone has to tell me something. I think it's that we need change.
There has always been a reason for the exams. They were not put in place just to prevent young people from entering the hobby. When the content was developed, Morse code was still a very valid method of communications, and the majority of amateur radio operations were indeed carried out with CW. The highly technical written exams were necessary because a large percentage of the amateur radio community had to build their equipment. Even by the time I got my license this was no longer true.
Things are different today. The code test is only a hurtle to jump on your way to getting your ticket. The majority of hams get their licenses and never touches a key again. Most people then run out and buy a radio, cable and antenna and forget all the electronics they had to learn. They are now what used to be called "appliance operators." The exams are no longer valid, given the state of the amateur radio community, old timers included.
We need growth. The mindset of those we'd like to attract is different than that same age group when I was considered to be a part of it. They want to communicate, that's why chat rooms and services such as AOL Instant Messenger chat are popular. They want to experiment with digital communications and computer applications. They look at the radio equipment as a modem, and probably rightly so. While there's still a lot to experiment with at the RF level that satisfies these needs, i.e., software defined radio, there's much more room to experiment in station control, measurement, digital modulation, coding and information theory. We, as a community, need to adapt.
However, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the reason we exist is to serve the public. Morse code is a valid means of communications in emergencies, and we should still use it. While I'm calling for a change, it should still be part the rules. We need to leave spectrum allocation for CW in place. There should be a license endorsement for passing a Morse code test, to encourage people to at least learn Morse code so that they can help in emergencies. In fact, while not relevant to this particular thr
Don't know who the fool was that limited distance to 150 miles. When I first started in amateur radio, I used a Heathkit HW-101 driving a Lafayette Radio Electronics CB ground plane and worked the US, Europe, Africa (right into South Africa). I know 11 meters will certainly behave the same, and getting folks turned on to a little "DXing" would most certainly help get people into amateur radio.
Additionally, in the post 9/11 world, we're all worried about terrorism in the US. I'm limiting this discussion to FCC for now, but this most certainly applies globally, especially in light of the recent London bombings. To have something like REACT come alive again and aligned with ARRL would be a good idea as well.
I had thought of filing this idea several times now. Maybe I should do it. I would be awfully surprised if Hollingsworth doesn't at least entertan the idea.
(rant mode on)
/.
Well, I don't sit around talking about my hemorrhoids while eating prunes, as some here posted. I was first licensed in 1969, and hold the same call sign since 1972. Guess what, I'm the guy up high enough in the company to decide whether or not you get to practice all that new knowledge your brand new CS degree says you have. You'd be surprised to find where all those old farts are in business. Oh yeah, I'm a well known open source contributor as well. So much for all that "only new brains can be creative" crap typical on
(rant mode off)
Hopefully, the preceding rant will attract attention and folks will read on. I'm not going to rehash how amateur radio is there in emergencies, how local hams contributed to 9/11 or the last devastating weather event, earthquake, etc. Nor am I going to debate internet versus amateur radio. These are tangents to the real discussion.
As I mentioned, I learned Morse code a long time ago. Frankly, I found that I could do 5 WPM by simply memorizing the dits and dahs and matching them to what I heard. Most of the hams I know would probably agree as to how simple 5 WPM really is, but that should not be a reason to keep the code requirement.
I think that most hams see it as a barrier to entry, not for people who want to be hams, but all those morons who rush out to buy CB radios and want to play "good buddy" with all the truckers. I can safely say that no ham will ever tell anyone who is interested in amateur radio to go away. In fact, most hams I know talk about how to attract more young people into the hobby. No real ham will stand in your way. If he or she does, I'd like to see that individual's license taken away, not support the individual.
For me, amateur radio was how I got hooked into getting an engineering degree. Even now, it is a place for me to experiment with hardware and software in communications settings. By September, I'll have an experimental software defined radio on the air and have some fun as I learn some new stuff. Do I need Morse Code for this? Of course not.
Will I use Morse Code in the future? Sure will. In fact, as more and more people forget code, I'll cherish my ability as something that differentiates me from the masses. In fact, after a long hiatus, I just recently returned to code and enjoy every minute of it.
As a ham, I think the code requirement is dated. It doesn't really stop morons from getting on the air. A scan of the 75 meter QSOs any evening should help you get over your fears that no code will allow irresponsible individuals to run rampant and spoil the hobby. I would not advocate removing the code only portions of the HF bands, which is the next logical step in this process. CW and other digital modes need the spectrum allocation to prevent potential interference from the wider bandwidth modes.
In a related step, I'd like to see 11 meters taken back into amateur radio as a band for an entry level, no test license. Other, better services exist to fill the need CB radio originally addressed and 11 meters would make a great place to get people interested in the hobby.
OK folks, flame on!
Last week I had enough of him and the petty politics in the group, lab and between labs, so I left with only a promise from another employer. I was unemployed for about five minutes until I got the verbal offer after I quit.
Leaving without another job was something I've never done before, but it really didn't make a difference. I figured out that I could live on a smaller salary, and that by changing my mindset I could not only survive but thrive.
Why am I bucking conventional wisdom? Simple. I watched many peers and friends get marched out the door after getting fired (laid off, downsized, rightsized, participate in work force reduction program, etc.). There are no guarantees in working for any company. In fact, it's just a false sense of security because you can loose your job quite easily because some bozo didn't make a sale or miscalculated margins.
Here's what you need to keep in mind. You're not necessarily looking for a new job as much as planning your financial future. If it means two part time jobs instead of a full time one, great. If you have enough degrees to teach, do that and consult as well. Think of yourself as a business, devise a business plan and do a proforma analysis of your financial future, including cash flow. Once you have a plan, follow it. There may be less risk here than staying at your current job.
I got lucky. Everything fell into place. I'm now working full time with a consulting company, and I got a pay increase to boot. I don't think I would have done it if I hadn't stopped thinking as an employee. I don't know what the future holds, but I'm excited and happier.
My advice to you is look at all options, plan your next step and act on that plan. It could be either a new job, or a new business. Don't let emotions get in the way, and don't limit your thinking to simply being an employee. The bottom line is how much money can you make and will it be something agreeable.
I have many years of music training, play keyboard (piano, synthesizer), and guitar (acoustic, bass, electric). I studied music at the undergraduate level, even though my undergraduate degree is EE. I've composed songs and jingles. But after listening to this collection of "new holiday classics," I can tell you that this misses the mark. I can see why many feel that this stuff was terrible.
If you wanted it for some cheesy, B grade sci fi channel original movie, this is great. But for a holiday collection, boy, did you screw up. You would have been better off with Mozart's Musical Dice than this algorithm. In fact, there is such a high repetition of certain sequences that you can barely tell one composition from another.
Go back and try again. And take this stuff off the web site. It's trash.
Urban myth. AIX had nothing to do with Tru64, aka OSF/1. There were DEC, HP and IBM copyrights in there because of the joint development effort, i.e., each contributed code.
Mach 2.5. It was used more along the lines of something like oskit than a microkernel, as it was integrated into the kernel.
There are a number of open source projects that are trying to add things like SSI to Linux. Why not join them and make it happen for everyone.
They're not based on the same code. Tru64 came from OSF/1 which was a clean room rewrite of Unix, back when AT&T was the evil OS overlord. It was written by IBM, HP and DEC. Only Digital stuck with it, and renamed it twice: OSF/1 -> Digital UNIX -> [Digital|Compaq|HP] Tru64. And that's the point, that they are so incompatible that the task was monumental in the way HP approached it.
Enough said.
CFC did affect the hole, but has anyone ever considered external influences, such as solar winds or sunspots?
The best bet would be to initially target it at FPGAs like the Xilinx devices. There are already a number of SoC and 8 bit processors on these devices.
Unfortunately, 64 bits is a killer because of internal bus widths and, of course, internal registers will take up many cells, limiting what you can do on a single device. Still, it would be interesting to try.
I thought I was the only freak who did this! Har!
Well, I'm still out of it. Seems that if the FAA has denied you a 3rd class, you have to successfully pass a 3rd class. Two flaws with this logic:
1. If the FAA knows you have a condition, i.e., diabetes, and it's in control but not with an approved drug, you're out. If they don't know you have it, and you don't have it under control, especially with instances of hypoglycemia, then you can get the new license because you have a driver's license.
How is it that I'm a menace but the other individual is not? Oh, I get it, it's the ostrich approach to managing public safety.
2. If I pass my 3rd class, why bother with a sport license if I can go right back to private?
I should have known that the FAA would screw it up somehow.
This is good news for people like me who used to fly but had to give up our licenses due to overly restrictive Third Class Medical requirements.
...
I know there will be lot's of critics here, all spouting off about 9/11, but that's nonsense. Flying a small aircraft into a target does not cause similar damage. That was proven shortly after 9/11 when a teenager in Florida killed himself after trying to duplicate the events of 9/11, and it was a bigger plane than what is permitted by this new class of license.
As for using it to carry a bomb, another criticism frequently heard, this also is of no merit. The original World Trade Center attack was done with explosives in a van, similar to the Oklahoma City event. You can bring an explosive in a briefcase as well, possibly even a small nuclear device. You don't need an aircraft for that.
Finally, passing legislation allowing the FAA to oversee ultralights is a good thing. Previously, it was self regulated, with almost nothing in the FAR about them. This now allows the agency to oversee safety where there was previously no one there to do so. This may be bad, as well as good, because the FAA is not known for its speed when it comes to certification, but will help the general aviation industry and sport pilots in the long run.
As for pilot training for terrorists, I don't see anyone chasing after Microsoft for Flight Simulator
It's called a field strength meter, and can be made with a diode, capacitor and typically an analog meter. When the needle deflects, you have electromagnetic energy in the area. Add one or more tuned circuits to it and you narrow it down to the cell phone band(s).
Move along. Nothing to see here.
I'd rather have a good productivity suite aimed at Linux and better commercial level documentation than just something that allows me to run Microsoft apps. Yeah, yeah, I know that there are other products that are tied to the Microsoft OS base, but those will eventually migrate as well.
There is a lot of inertia in the commercial software market. It takes years for apps to catch up. Why do you think it took such a long time for the DOS based Windows transition? It took a long time to get all the hardware manufacturers to write drivers, ISVs to qualify their apps, and in some cases finally port it to 32 bits, etc. With the current, very positive, Linux trend, there are a lot of hardware and software companies taking a serious look and targeting Linux. It just takes time.
As far as project David goes, one big downfall is that they are copying existing Windows APIs. New APIs are under development right now for release in Longhorn and beyond. The project David folks have to wait until they're released to find out about the changes. Then they have to scurry about and put those changes into project David. What makes them think that they're any smarter or faster than the developers at Microsoft in order to do this in less time? By the time they catch up, the cycle will repeat itself. Never underestimate your enemy. It is better to be surprised by his stupidity than by his cleverness."
They are much more fortunate than the original Wine developers because they don't have to suffer through the awkward win32 transitional period, and have Wine as an example to study to boot. The Wine developers had nothing.
My hats off to the Wine folks, and a big yawn for project David.
I'm way older than David Wong, and part of the original gamers. We were the ones transitioning from pinball machines through Pong to the original video games like like Space Invaders and such.
Guess what, technology marched on, and allowed companies like Atari and Coleco to offer new, challenging games at home. At about the same time my kid brother grew up, and he started on the next wave of games like the original Nintendo. Now my kids play the new consoles, GBA, etc.
Gaming is a form of entertainment that will continue. At one time it was a little silver ball, aided by gravity, bouncing around. Now it's very tiny pixels on a screen. When 3D displays become real, games will probably take advantage of that and in the future, who knows? Maybe everyone will devote their basements to virtual gaming ala Star Trek holodeck instead of pool tables and Mame consoles.
Markets, video game or otherwise, always change, and the companies that can make it happen will replace the ones that can't. The death of those companies doesn't signal the death of the industry. Instead it's a sign of the transformation of the market.
I was on a grand jury at one time, and got to hear cases like this. This seems to be a situation where Pat Richard may or may not be in trouble. It all depends on state law, how it is written, and how the grand jury interprets the law.
In my opinion, the charges are ludicrous. The extortion charge won't stick, based on "750.213 Malicious threats to extort money." According to that law, a malicious threat of injury, accusation of a crime or a threat that causes a modification of a person's behavior has to be demonstrated. In neither of the links does anything remotely resemble that. Additionally, the obstruction of justice charge listed is really "750.505 Punishment for indictable common law offenses," which is a Michigan catchall for throwing the book at someone.
Since the prosecutor seems squarely behind this one, I certainly wouldn't take anything lightly. However, I don't think this will be as bad as it sounds. Most likely, this will simply be remanded to a lower court and be reduced to a civil suit filed against the state, not Pat Richard. Hopefully, Pat Richard will learn from this and study a little contract law, in order to make better decisions in the future.
If every open source project officially revokes SCO's license, they'd loose quite a bit. I think they would loose their TCP/IP support, if I recall correctly, because it is the BSD stack. Someone else already mentioned Apache yanking their licenses.
SCO also has a linux emulation API. At least at one point during this legal battle, SCO argued that the Linux API was embodied in Linux, and that this constituted an infringement on their copyright. However, SCO conveniently forgets about their Linux Kernel Personality. According to the SCO web site, "This environment does not contain a Linux kernel, but does contain the RPMs needed to run most Linux applications." So, anyone who owns code in these RPMs should also yank their code, crippling the SCO Unixware distribution. This could cause a major disruption in SCO's business, if properly executed.
Finally, I submit that Linus Torvalds should sue SCO for improperly incorporating the API into the SCO kernel and/or system libraries. The theory is that they could not have done this without viewing the code, and by doing so the code they've written is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Properly executed, this could kill SCO altogether. Wouldn't that be enjoyable to watch.
I scanned through the lists, and found quite a few single line entires in the table. I decided to look one up, specifically net/bridge/br_stp.c. Here's the offending line:
p = br->port_list;
If it wasn't for the history behind this, I'd have to laugh out loud. The only conclusion I can come to is that the majority of the claim comes from structure/union definitions in header files, and they extend it to C files wherever a structure/union member is referenced.
If I get some time, I may do an analysis of the list and determine exactly how little this case actually has to do with IP theft.
There are simple inaccuracies throughout the entire document:
There are two things very wrong with the above. First, SCO implied that Linux is a clone of UNIX, and totally ignored the publicly, and widely known fact that Linus started his work from Minix, another UNIX like operating system developed independent of the AT&T UNIX code base. Second, the use of the phrasing "inability and/or unwillingness" are inflammatory, meant to convey an inept, and possibly hostile, Linus Torvalds image to the reader, to support the claimed predatory action.
Furthermore, they claim that hobbyists could not make Linux into an enterprise operating system without IBM because the hobbyists lacked the hardware necessary to do so. This completely ignores the early involvement of Digital Equipment Corporation who donated workstation and server equipment to Linus Torvalds in order to help grow Linux.
The idea that the moon is a better launching point than earth seems silly. Unless you can get the resources you need on the moon, you need to ship them from earth. If you can't get 100% efficiency out of every process you use to build your new ships, you'll need to ship more raw materials to the moon than you would have used on Earth. More raw materials = more weight.
So, unless I missed something Bush handed everyone yet another pile of dung to get a lunar base going. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.