For those of you that have achieved this level of proficiency, do understand that not everyone is able to. And it does work the other way. Years back I helped teach a class that included an older gentleman, a WW II vet. He had been a radio operator in the Pacific and wanted to get back on CW. For him it was like getting back on the bicycle, he was a natural. However, getting him through the Novice written was hard for him and us (the instructors). We finally did it, but he never did get beyond Novice class as he just wasn't able to grasp it. He is now a silent key, but while he was licensed he did get hooked up with some other vets and had a great time on the air.
Quite simply, some folks can accel at one thing that others find quite difficult. It may have nothing at all to do with motivation. It is just how we are.
I've also learned not to judge other hams based on their technical proficiency. I just hope that some of the Code crowd can learn to do the same.
Actually, that is based more on the international regulations where other signatory nations used their influence to protect their state owned telephone companies. Note that it is only referring to international communications.
Very interesting. At one time (back in the '30s I believe), it was a requirement that the applicant had to draw the complete schematic of his proposed station as part of the exam. However, to require that hams build all of their equipment would kill the service faster than the naysayers claim dropping the Morse exam will.
Where would the new ham find the parts to build a radio? Many parts are already difficult to find. You say manufacturers would ramp up production? I doubt it as ham radio has a far smaller user base than Linux and look at the trouble we encounter with manufacturers supporting Linux on their hardware.
While I think I understand your sentiment, it simply isn't practical. Ham radio today is about emergency communications more than anything else. Hams need reliable and agile equipment to fulfill that role. Nothing discourages hams from building their own gear (or modifying other equipment to work on the ham bands), and many still do either from scratch or by way of a kit. As with Morse Code it should not be a regulatory requirement.
Errr, which part of any HF band has been taken back? There were some adjustments immediately after World War II, but we have gathered more HF spectrum over the past quarter century, not lost (okay, 27 MHz was part of Amateur Radio until the CB service was created in the '50s). We have gotten 250 kHz in three allocations at 10 MHz, 18 MHz, and 24 MHz in the 1980s and 5 "channels" at 5 MHz within the past few years. Back in the 1980s the allocation at 1.8 MHz also became uniform nationwide and useful to more hams. On HF we have had many gains of spectrum.
Where we have lost is part of 220 MHz and some portions of certain microwave bands but we also gained 902-928 MHz.
I expect us to gain more spectrum at MW (probably 500 kHz) within the next decade, but the microwave spectrum is at greatest risk.
Okay, I probably shouldn't reply to a -1 flamebait, but are you aware that the FCC hasn't been in charge of the tests for some time? The Question Pool Committee (QPC), made up of representatives of each Volunteer Exam Coordinator (VEC), determine what is a part of each license class's exam. The FCC has been trying to back away from Amateur Radio for about 30 years now. This is just one more step.
If you truly care about the direction the Service is headed, then you need to get involved in one of the organizations and work toward that end.
But, only dropped for the Technician class and already back in 1991. This action drops the Morse requirement for all classes of amateur licenses issued in the USA. Prior to this action becoming effective, any licensee operating below 30 MHz must have demonstrated a knowledge of Morse Code.
The ARRL Handbook, as good as it is, gets dense rather quickly. ARRL publishes a number of good introductory books. A couple that might be of use are Basic Radio and Understanding Basic Electronics.
Another good book, long out of print but maybe available used in various places, is Understanding Amateur Radio. I picked up a copy of it back in the early '80s and it helped my self study of electronics immensely.
I have been involved with administering amateur radio license exams since 1992 and have overseen two separate exam teams since 1999. So, I have seen us transition from a rather complicated licensing structure to one that is a bit more sane.
I hear comments that amateur radio is being "dumbed down" to match the output of the government schools. The truth be told, I have witnessed people from many walks of life be thoroughly confused by the old licensing structure. So, there it little doubt in my mind that changes needed to be made. As an examiner, the recent (2000 and now 2006) changes will make my life a bit easier. They also lessen the burden on the FCC's administration of the Amateur Radio Service which is a key factor behind the recent changes.
As for the Morse Code requirement. When I started my self study of Morse in 1981, I truly believed that I would never be able to pass any test higher than 5 WPM. A few years later I did pass the 13 WPM (1985) and then in 1992 I passed the 20 WPM exam to obtain my Amateur Extra class license. I have used the code at various times throughout my ham radio career, but haven't ever gotten proficient enough at it to carry on a casual conversation with it. I have done well enough to enjoy some radio contests using the mode.
While I should probably be in the camp that says "I had to do it, all newcomers should too", I am not. In the early '90s the FCC, in response to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, made an administrative rule allowing anyone to obtain a doctor's statement claiming a disability that granted a waiver of the 13 and 20 WPM exams. As examiners we were required to accept the statement and grant the waiver. We could not question it any way. I personally saw several abuses of that rule and there was nothing I could do. The FCC was very specific in its mandate that only it had the authority to question the validity of any such statement.
The upshot of this is that due to the medical waivers, the 13 and 20 WPM Morse Code exams had almost become a farce by the time Restructuring (the action that reduced the license classes from six to three and reduced the Morse exam to 5 WPM) was enacted in April 2000. Anyone wanting to operate on HF still had to pass 5 WPM as the FCC deemed that speed not a significant hardship and the USA needed to comply with its treaty obligations which required a knowledge of Morse Code for operators licensed to operate below 30 MHz.
There are many reasons for hams to learn Morse Code in the future and a lot of them have already been stated here and elsewhere. The debate about whether it should be required knowledge is now moot so it's time for the amateur radio community to work toward the future. Morse Code (or CW) is one mode among many available for the Radio Amateur's use. As such, it can stand on its own and attract those interested in using it. I predict that the use of Morse Code on the amateur radio bands will continue for many years into the future by those that appreciate it.
Preparing for an exam session will now mean that I just have to prepare the written exams for the three license classes. No longer do I need to drag various pieces of electronic equipment along to conduct a Morse Code exam. This relieves the exam teams of a significant burden and will speed exam sessions up considerably. It will also make exam sessions more consistent as the Morse Code exam was an area where many teams free-lanced and some even prided themselves on administering an exam that was very difficult to pass.
Based on the elitism that I've seen demonstrated by too many hams over the years regarding the knowledge of Morse Code, I am not one bit sorry to see the exam requirement for it eliminated.
In fact, the bill passed and signed a year ago earmarks $1.5 billion for the express purpose of providing $40 vouchers for set top boxes to *anyone*, regardless of income level. Consumer groups were upset because they believed that the actual amount needed was about $5 billion.
I suspect the 2009 date was chosen due to it being just after the 2008 presidential election and far enough ahead of the 2010 mid-terms to have much effect. As to why February 17th was chosen, it's because it is just after the Superbowl and Daytona 500 and before the NCAA and conference basketball tournaments begin (that was a quote from someone in Congress from an article I read).
I'm sorry to say, but you need to adjust your cynicism to match reality.
As I said, watching anything on ESPN with my current setup gives me a very sharp and detailed picture with my 10 year old DirecTV receiver and 13 year old Zenith set. What is my gain by doubling my hardware investment and incurring a larger monthly fee? Is the game broadcast in a wider format so I would get a better view of the field? Not all sports is broadcast in HD. Will ESPN broadcast NASCAR in HD starting next year?
The in-store demonstrations have left me with the impression that this is a gadget and nothing more. I'm serious. I'll admit to not having gone into a high-end electronics retailer to take a look, but my wallet can't justify the cost versus my perceived return at this time. In five years it may be different and irresistible.
So how about us that are at least 70 miles (no lie!) from the nearest transmitter? Analog degrades somewhat gracefully. Do we get blocky/choppy video? Do we need to put up a 200 foot tower for the equivalent performance of an antenna at 50 feet for analog reception?
As near as I can tell, Digital TV was not designed for us folks out here in the hinterlands.
Also, just wait until granny has to figure out how she's going to buy a new TV out of her Social Security check to watch The Price is Right when the forced end of analog transmissions occurs? You know that no one in the sales department is going to show her the $200 set-top box, which she'll have to figure how to install and use or pay someone another SS check to do for her.
I'm sitting back and waiting for the howls of protest when analog is shut off a year from now (or did the FCC change that again?). I heard from a friend who spoke to a broadcast engineer within the past year that the TV stations he's involved with will be destroying their analog transmitters immediately after the cutover--not sometime in January of '08, but on New Years Day so there will be no way they can turn them back on. It ought to be fun to watch the fallout from this one because many people have no idea this is coming. Congress might want to rethink that cutover date and move it from the beginning of an election year!
I completely agree. Right now I'm watching Monday night Football via DirecTV and my 13 year old Zenith 25" TV. It looks good enough for me, but I'm getting old and jaded and less enthused by whiz-bang stuff every day. I do notice that ESPN's HD programming seems sharper and clearer than other content which probably has more to do with improved camera and production technology at the head end of the broadcast than anything I could do here. An HDTV set won't improve a lousy signal fed to it.
For example, my dad's TV started going flakely a week or so ago by losing the green tint (that looked weird), so I was in Wal*Mart today and looked at their meager selection of SDTV sets. It didn't look impressive and they are really hawking flat panel sets. For the price they're asking, I'm going to pass.
Since I'm not into movies, for the most part, and I only watch a subset of sports, I'm not really sure how HD benefits me.
Expending resources on useless and harmful activity certainly must account for much of the energy consumption. It would be fantastic if someone could quantify this impact, although that would be "embarrassing" for MS and thus won't be done.
I assumed that the poster above was referring to the idea that it is "cheap" to get programming on an existing radio station, not apply for, construct, and operate one's own station. Not all stations sell air time, but some do (especially on shortwave) and that is much cheaper than a complete station.
And nowhere near as easy/safe to work with. Bison are still very much a wild beast and as such don't take to a human presence very well.
I saw a feature on the RFD channel (379 on DirecTV) last fall about a Canadian rancher's setup for Bison. Everything was structured so that the animals had no human contact or could not easily see them as they were worked. At no time were the workers in the pens with the animals.
Contrast this to cattle where, except for the odd bull or cow that is protecting her newborn calf (a cattleman is acutely aware of those situations), the animals are fairly docile and easy to work with. Fencing for cattle is a fraction of that required for Bison and, while not completely pets, cattle are more or less domesticated and are fairly predictable.
I guess it boils down to economics. Cattle can be fenced in with a single wire connected to an electric fence charger. Bison need to be fenced in like Fort Knox.
Then there is the expectations of the food consumer. "Wild" meat is generally an aquired taste (it took me years to enjoy venison). Beef these days is quite lean and tender compared to years past.
I'm not saying that Bison are bad, but that most livestock producers aren't up to the challenge.
That brings back memories! I knew right away the source of your parody.
As a kid I was a big C.W. McCall fan and had most of the albums (yes, real vinyl albums) plus a couple on 8-track. I'd borrow mom's stereo to play them. The things my folks put up with.:-D
The company I work for does block them. When the LD number is dialed, you get a stutter dialtone that is prompting for a security code. The call goes nowhere until the code is entered. 900, 976, etc. numbers are blocked completely.
Internet access occurs through a Squid proxy that replaced an earlier Novell proxy that frequently lost one's login info and you had to log out and back into Windows to resume access. Once the Squid proxy was put in place, Firefox could access the 'Net, I just need to login manually. Not near the sites are blocked now as used to be, but maybe they just haven't gotten 'round tuit yet.
A number of belief systems put the blame of the world's problems squarely on the human race. I suspect a number of people would welcome a catastrophe that would wipe out mankind and allow the earth to emerge much as it is today but without us meddling humans.
What they don't realize is that the dominant species that follows us may be much worse.
Is it just our egos that compells us to attempt some means of preservation? What if fate or some other power has deigned that we should be extinct? Shouldn't we obey our master(s)?
My folks grew up in what today would be termed abject poverty, but neither of them nor their families turned to crime. What they did have and what they passed on to me were strong religious and moral teachings and values. That is the critical difference. Crime is the result of a lack of morality not a lack of money or bling.
If crime were strictly a matter of poverty, then the Ken Lays of the world wouldn't commit white collar crime.
Actually, no. President Bush denounces the terrorist factions and then goes on to praise and defend Islam as a faith.
Also, Islam's Allah is a singular being while the Christian idea of God involves three distinct beings, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit known as the Triune God--God in three persons, Blessed Trinity. Not the same God at all.
Hopefully, I have good enough hardware to last for the next decade or longer. After that, who knows. Something tells me that commodity hardware will be available most everywhere except the industrialized nations. Here in the US, if you don't have the proper credentials you won't be able to write or tinker with software or hardware of any kind. Worse, if your computer fails a trusted handshake, no ISP will be allowed to let you access the Internet. Hopefully, I'm just feeling pessimistic.
If they out law my vintage motorcycle from taking the road, then it'll be time to take up arms!
True, the ESA has been doing space for some time but they have yet to make the commitment to mannned flight while China has. I'm not sure that Russia has a space program without US funding. My guess is we have been keeping their space program going since the breakup of the USSR to keep their people and facilities from being bought by the likes of Iran.
Outward colonization is intriguing and brings with it some very high hurdles. Probably none technically any higher than space flight as we know it seemed a century ago. To get to any place hospitable we're going to have to get beyond physics as we now understand it. Otherwise we're stuck in artificial environments in inhospitable locations which seems to not be a recipe for long-term survival of the species.
But then, who am I to say that Earth itself may not be an artificial environment previously colonized. The odds against that are considered long but it is possible that there is no other natural place like this in the Universe. Perhaps in order to colonize another planet we will need to transform it into being as Earth like as possible.
I don't think the general population ever gave much of a hoot for space or the space program back in the '60s. There were plenty of people who believed it to be a collosal waste of money and time. For many getting onto the moon was supported as the fulfillment of a promise and a legacy to a fallen popular president. Once that was done the interest waned rather quickly. Evidence of that is the speculation at the time that the Apollo 13 emergency was cooked up by NASA to recapture waning public interest.
The Beatles, Elvis, Joe Dimaggio, Marilyn Monroe, et. al. have always garnered more public interest than technology despite our rearward view of the time through news reels and rose colored glasses. Technology inevitably becomes a tool for the masses as they have little interest in the technology itself. Space is the same way. Only by new acheivement or disaster does the public take notice for a few moments.
I really think it is time that Congress begin working toward dismantling NASA--a process that would likely take 25 years or so. By that time private launch companies will probably be a viable option and the FAA can handle the airspace details. The Air Force can handle the military launch needs. NASA could be repurposed to maintaining the various scientific missions that will remain after the ISS is decommissioned or turned over to private concerns. Universities can handle future scientific missions.
As much as I hate to say it and as much of a fan of the space program I am, I believe NASA has become our space program's own worst enemy. It's a relic of the Cold War and functions with all the efficiency of a half century old bureaucracy. Sadly, NASA doesn't seem to have any idea of the Shuttle's replacement and clings doggedly to it.
Looking back over the twenty years since Challenger and nearly three since Columbia, I'm not sure NASA can be fixed. In the mean time, the Chinese seem ready to make some dramatic steps in space over the next decade. Since the public no longer perceives a national purpose from the space program, China will quickly become the leader in space exploration/exploitation.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of you that have achieved this level of proficiency, do understand that not everyone is able to. And it does work the other way. Years back I helped teach a class that included an older gentleman, a WW II vet. He had been a radio operator in the Pacific and wanted to get back on CW. For him it was like getting back on the bicycle, he was a natural. However, getting him through the Novice written was hard for him and us (the instructors). We finally did it, but he never did get beyond Novice class as he just wasn't able to grasp it. He is now a silent key, but while he was licensed he did get hooked up with some other vets and had a great time on the air.
Quite simply, some folks can accel at one thing that others find quite difficult. It may have nothing at all to do with motivation. It is just how we are.
I've also learned not to judge other hams based on their technical proficiency. I just hope that some of the Code crowd can learn to do the same.
Actually, that is based more on the international regulations where other signatory nations used their influence to protect their state owned telephone companies. Note that it is only referring to international communications.
Very interesting. At one time (back in the '30s I believe), it was a requirement that the applicant had to draw the complete schematic of his proposed station as part of the exam. However, to require that hams build all of their equipment would kill the service faster than the naysayers claim dropping the Morse exam will.
Where would the new ham find the parts to build a radio? Many parts are already difficult to find. You say manufacturers would ramp up production? I doubt it as ham radio has a far smaller user base than Linux and look at the trouble we encounter with manufacturers supporting Linux on their hardware.
While I think I understand your sentiment, it simply isn't practical. Ham radio today is about emergency communications more than anything else. Hams need reliable and agile equipment to fulfill that role. Nothing discourages hams from building their own gear (or modifying other equipment to work on the ham bands), and many still do either from scratch or by way of a kit. As with Morse Code it should not be a regulatory requirement.
Errr, which part of any HF band has been taken back? There were some adjustments immediately after World War II, but we have gathered more HF spectrum over the past quarter century, not lost (okay, 27 MHz was part of Amateur Radio until the CB service was created in the '50s). We have gotten 250 kHz in three allocations at 10 MHz, 18 MHz, and 24 MHz in the 1980s and 5 "channels" at 5 MHz within the past few years. Back in the 1980s the allocation at 1.8 MHz also became uniform nationwide and useful to more hams. On HF we have had many gains of spectrum.
Where we have lost is part of 220 MHz and some portions of certain microwave bands but we also gained 902-928 MHz.
I expect us to gain more spectrum at MW (probably 500 kHz) within the next decade, but the microwave spectrum is at greatest risk.
Okay, I probably shouldn't reply to a -1 flamebait, but are you aware that the FCC hasn't been in charge of the tests for some time? The Question Pool Committee (QPC), made up of representatives of each Volunteer Exam Coordinator (VEC), determine what is a part of each license class's exam. The FCC has been trying to back away from Amateur Radio for about 30 years now. This is just one more step.
If you truly care about the direction the Service is headed, then you need to get involved in one of the organizations and work toward that end.
But, only dropped for the Technician class and already back in 1991. This action drops the Morse requirement for all classes of amateur licenses issued in the USA. Prior to this action becoming effective, any licensee operating below 30 MHz must have demonstrated a knowledge of Morse Code.
The ARRL Handbook, as good as it is, gets dense rather quickly. ARRL publishes a number of good introductory books. A couple that might be of use are Basic Radio and Understanding Basic Electronics.
Another good book, long out of print but maybe available used in various places, is Understanding Amateur Radio. I picked up a copy of it back in the early '80s and it helped my self study of electronics immensely.
I have been involved with administering amateur radio license exams since 1992 and have overseen two separate exam teams since 1999. So, I have seen us transition from a rather complicated licensing structure to one that is a bit more sane.
I hear comments that amateur radio is being "dumbed down" to match the output of the government schools. The truth be told, I have witnessed people from many walks of life be thoroughly confused by the old licensing structure. So, there it little doubt in my mind that changes needed to be made. As an examiner, the recent (2000 and now 2006) changes will make my life a bit easier. They also lessen the burden on the FCC's administration of the Amateur Radio Service which is a key factor behind the recent changes.
As for the Morse Code requirement. When I started my self study of Morse in 1981, I truly believed that I would never be able to pass any test higher than 5 WPM. A few years later I did pass the 13 WPM (1985) and then in 1992 I passed the 20 WPM exam to obtain my Amateur Extra class license. I have used the code at various times throughout my ham radio career, but haven't ever gotten proficient enough at it to carry on a casual conversation with it. I have done well enough to enjoy some radio contests using the mode.
While I should probably be in the camp that says "I had to do it, all newcomers should too", I am not. In the early '90s the FCC, in response to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, made an administrative rule allowing anyone to obtain a doctor's statement claiming a disability that granted a waiver of the 13 and 20 WPM exams. As examiners we were required to accept the statement and grant the waiver. We could not question it any way. I personally saw several abuses of that rule and there was nothing I could do. The FCC was very specific in its mandate that only it had the authority to question the validity of any such statement.
The upshot of this is that due to the medical waivers, the 13 and 20 WPM Morse Code exams had almost become a farce by the time Restructuring (the action that reduced the license classes from six to three and reduced the Morse exam to 5 WPM) was enacted in April 2000. Anyone wanting to operate on HF still had to pass 5 WPM as the FCC deemed that speed not a significant hardship and the USA needed to comply with its treaty obligations which required a knowledge of Morse Code for operators licensed to operate below 30 MHz.
There are many reasons for hams to learn Morse Code in the future and a lot of them have already been stated here and elsewhere. The debate about whether it should be required knowledge is now moot so it's time for the amateur radio community to work toward the future. Morse Code (or CW) is one mode among many available for the Radio Amateur's use. As such, it can stand on its own and attract those interested in using it. I predict that the use of Morse Code on the amateur radio bands will continue for many years into the future by those that appreciate it.
Preparing for an exam session will now mean that I just have to prepare the written exams for the three license classes. No longer do I need to drag various pieces of electronic equipment along to conduct a Morse Code exam. This relieves the exam teams of a significant burden and will speed exam sessions up considerably. It will also make exam sessions more consistent as the Morse Code exam was an area where many teams free-lanced and some even prided themselves on administering an exam that was very difficult to pass.
Based on the elitism that I've seen demonstrated by too many hams over the years regarding the knowledge of Morse Code, I am not one bit sorry to see the exam requirement for it eliminated.
In fact, the bill passed and signed a year ago earmarks $1.5 billion for the express purpose of providing $40 vouchers for set top boxes to *anyone*, regardless of income level. Consumer groups were upset because they believed that the actual amount needed was about $5 billion.
I suspect the 2009 date was chosen due to it being just after the 2008 presidential election and far enough ahead of the 2010 mid-terms to have much effect. As to why February 17th was chosen, it's because it is just after the Superbowl and Daytona 500 and before the NCAA and conference basketball tournaments begin (that was a quote from someone in Congress from an article I read).
I'm sorry to say, but you need to adjust your cynicism to match reality.
As I said, watching anything on ESPN with my current setup gives me a very sharp and detailed picture with my 10 year old DirecTV receiver and 13 year old Zenith set. What is my gain by doubling my hardware investment and incurring a larger monthly fee? Is the game broadcast in a wider format so I would get a better view of the field? Not all sports is broadcast in HD. Will ESPN broadcast NASCAR in HD starting next year?
The in-store demonstrations have left me with the impression that this is a gadget and nothing more. I'm serious. I'll admit to not having gone into a high-end electronics retailer to take a look, but my wallet can't justify the cost versus my perceived return at this time. In five years it may be different and irresistible.
So how about us that are at least 70 miles (no lie!) from the nearest transmitter? Analog degrades somewhat gracefully. Do we get blocky/choppy video? Do we need to put up a 200 foot tower for the equivalent performance of an antenna at 50 feet for analog reception?
As near as I can tell, Digital TV was not designed for us folks out here in the hinterlands.
Also, just wait until granny has to figure out how she's going to buy a new TV out of her Social Security check to watch The Price is Right when the forced end of analog transmissions occurs? You know that no one in the sales department is going to show her the $200 set-top box, which she'll have to figure how to install and use or pay someone another SS check to do for her.
I'm sitting back and waiting for the howls of protest when analog is shut off a year from now (or did the FCC change that again?). I heard from a friend who spoke to a broadcast engineer within the past year that the TV stations he's involved with will be destroying their analog transmitters immediately after the cutover--not sometime in January of '08, but on New Years Day so there will be no way they can turn them back on. It ought to be fun to watch the fallout from this one because many people have no idea this is coming. Congress might want to rethink that cutover date and move it from the beginning of an election year!
I completely agree. Right now I'm watching Monday night Football via DirecTV and my 13 year old Zenith 25" TV. It looks good enough for me, but I'm getting old and jaded and less enthused by whiz-bang stuff every day. I do notice that ESPN's HD programming seems sharper and clearer than other content which probably has more to do with improved camera and production technology at the head end of the broadcast than anything I could do here. An HDTV set won't improve a lousy signal fed to it.
For example, my dad's TV started going flakely a week or so ago by losing the green tint (that looked weird), so I was in Wal*Mart today and looked at their meager selection of SDTV sets. It didn't look impressive and they are really hawking flat panel sets. For the price they're asking, I'm going to pass.
Since I'm not into movies, for the most part, and I only watch a subset of sports, I'm not really sure how HD benefits me.
Bingo!
Expending resources on useless and harmful activity certainly must account for much of the energy consumption. It would be fantastic if someone could quantify this impact, although that would be "embarrassing" for MS and thus won't be done.
I assumed that the poster above was referring to the idea that it is "cheap" to get programming on an existing radio station, not apply for, construct, and operate one's own station. Not all stations sell air time, but some do (especially on shortwave) and that is much cheaper than a complete station.
And nowhere near as easy/safe to work with. Bison are still very much a wild beast and as such don't take to a human presence very well.
I saw a feature on the RFD channel (379 on DirecTV) last fall about a Canadian rancher's setup for Bison. Everything was structured so that the animals had no human contact or could not easily see them as they were worked. At no time were the workers in the pens with the animals.
Contrast this to cattle where, except for the odd bull or cow that is protecting her newborn calf (a cattleman is acutely aware of those situations), the animals are fairly docile and easy to work with. Fencing for cattle is a fraction of that required for Bison and, while not completely pets, cattle are more or less domesticated and are fairly predictable.
I guess it boils down to economics. Cattle can be fenced in with a single wire connected to an electric fence charger. Bison need to be fenced in like Fort Knox.
Then there is the expectations of the food consumer. "Wild" meat is generally an aquired taste (it took me years to enjoy venison). Beef these days is quite lean and tender compared to years past.
I'm not saying that Bison are bad, but that most livestock producers aren't up to the challenge.
That brings back memories! I knew right away the source of your parody.
:-D
As a kid I was a big C.W. McCall fan and had most of the albums (yes, real vinyl albums) plus a couple on 8-track. I'd borrow mom's stereo to play them. The things my folks put up with.
The company I work for does block them. When the LD number is dialed, you get a stutter dialtone that is prompting for a security code. The call goes nowhere until the code is entered. 900, 976, etc. numbers are blocked completely.
Internet access occurs through a Squid proxy that replaced an earlier Novell proxy that frequently lost one's login info and you had to log out and back into Windows to resume access. Once the Squid proxy was put in place, Firefox could access the 'Net, I just need to login manually. Not near the sites are blocked now as used to be, but maybe they just haven't gotten 'round tuit yet.
A number of belief systems put the blame of the world's problems squarely on the human race. I suspect a number of people would welcome a catastrophe that would wipe out mankind and allow the earth to emerge much as it is today but without us meddling humans.
What they don't realize is that the dominant species that follows us may be much worse.
Is it just our egos that compells us to attempt some means of preservation? What if fate or some other power has deigned that we should be extinct? Shouldn't we obey our master(s)?
I call BS.
My folks grew up in what today would be termed abject poverty, but neither of them nor their families turned to crime. What they did have and what they passed on to me were strong religious and moral teachings and values. That is the critical difference. Crime is the result of a lack of morality not a lack of money or bling.
If crime were strictly a matter of poverty, then the Ken Lays of the world wouldn't commit white collar crime.
Actually, no. President Bush denounces the terrorist factions and then goes on to praise and defend Islam as a faith.
Also, Islam's Allah is a singular being while the Christian idea of God involves three distinct beings, Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit known as the Triune God--God in three persons, Blessed Trinity. Not the same God at all.
Hopefully, I have good enough hardware to last for the next decade or longer. After that, who knows. Something tells me that commodity hardware will be available most everywhere except the industrialized nations. Here in the US, if you don't have the proper credentials you won't be able to write or tinker with software or hardware of any kind. Worse, if your computer fails a trusted handshake, no ISP will be allowed to let you access the Internet. Hopefully, I'm just feeling pessimistic.
If they out law my vintage motorcycle from taking the road, then it'll be time to take up arms!
Instead of writing "two uniformed men" it should have been written as "two uninformed men"...
I understood it to be the latter. Since most people find computers to rather complex, treating them as similar to a pet makes certain sense to me.
True, the ESA has been doing space for some time but they have yet to make the commitment to mannned flight while China has. I'm not sure that Russia has a space program without US funding. My guess is we have been keeping their space program going since the breakup of the USSR to keep their people and facilities from being bought by the likes of Iran.
Outward colonization is intriguing and brings with it some very high hurdles. Probably none technically any higher than space flight as we know it seemed a century ago. To get to any place hospitable we're going to have to get beyond physics as we now understand it. Otherwise we're stuck in artificial environments in inhospitable locations which seems to not be a recipe for long-term survival of the species.
But then, who am I to say that Earth itself may not be an artificial environment previously colonized. The odds against that are considered long but it is possible that there is no other natural place like this in the Universe. Perhaps in order to colonize another planet we will need to transform it into being as Earth like as possible.
I don't think the general population ever gave much of a hoot for space or the space program back in the '60s. There were plenty of people who believed it to be a collosal waste of money and time. For many getting onto the moon was supported as the fulfillment of a promise and a legacy to a fallen popular president. Once that was done the interest waned rather quickly. Evidence of that is the speculation at the time that the Apollo 13 emergency was cooked up by NASA to recapture waning public interest.
The Beatles, Elvis, Joe Dimaggio, Marilyn Monroe, et. al. have always garnered more public interest than technology despite our rearward view of the time through news reels and rose colored glasses. Technology inevitably becomes a tool for the masses as they have little interest in the technology itself. Space is the same way. Only by new acheivement or disaster does the public take notice for a few moments.
I really think it is time that Congress begin working toward dismantling NASA--a process that would likely take 25 years or so. By that time private launch companies will probably be a viable option and the FAA can handle the airspace details. The Air Force can handle the military launch needs. NASA could be repurposed to maintaining the various scientific missions that will remain after the ISS is decommissioned or turned over to private concerns. Universities can handle future scientific missions.
As much as I hate to say it and as much of a fan of the space program I am, I believe NASA has become our space program's own worst enemy. It's a relic of the Cold War and functions with all the efficiency of a half century old bureaucracy. Sadly, NASA doesn't seem to have any idea of the Shuttle's replacement and clings doggedly to it.
Looking back over the twenty years since Challenger and nearly three since Columbia, I'm not sure NASA can be fixed. In the mean time, the Chinese seem ready to make some dramatic steps in space over the next decade. Since the public no longer perceives a national purpose from the space program, China will quickly become the leader in space exploration/exploitation.