| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 04.10.99 17:47l 263 Lines 7548 Bytes #-9731 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_246E
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/246E
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SWR<DB0FP<DB0SON<DB0SIF<DB0HSK<PI8DRS<
PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991004/0817Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:5222 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_246
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA20377 ; Mon, 04 Oct 99 07:39:49 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016140 ; Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:18:14 MET
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 99 14:05:23 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_246E>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/246E
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
great new high-bandwidth application that it can't handle.... it's being
abandoned for the one application that it handled quite well on its own....
plain ol' BBS message forwarding. How dumb.
73, Mike - KG9HF
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:45:06 -0500
From: "Peter O. Brackett" <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Mike:
But Mike, prior to the advent of packet and BBS message forwarding, all
amateur message forwarding was done quite well by the NTS CW traffic nets.
Why did we allow amateurs to switch over to packet BBS forwarding and starve
those NTS CW traffic nets by allowing the packet traffic to bypass the CW
nets?
According to Charles theory, at that time, we should have got the FCC to ban
message forwarding by BBS systems. According to Charles, the government
should have insisted that amateur messages be forwarded by CW traffic nets
the way God intended for messages to be forwarded!
Right?
Peter AB4BC
Mike Hughes <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net> wrote in message
news:7su0gr$jde$1@hyperion.nitco.com...
> Charles Brabham wrote in message <7ssgij$2oqo@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> >
> >Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:7sr737$9uv@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> What? We desparately need to find new applications, but . . .Charlie
> >wants
> >> us to stop the application mantra.
> >
> >Oh, just as long as you quit using it as a lame excuse for doing
anything, I
> >suppose it's allright to chant it to yourself, if you feel you must.
> >
> >Of course, if I ever saw any evidence that a lack of new applications
really
> >was a sticking point, I might feel differently.
> >
> >Right now, it's just a rather lame excuse for sitting on your hands, and
> >when you parrot this mantra you not only discourage yourself, but others
as
> >well.
> >
> >My feeling is that the need for new applications was so desperate,
somebody
> >would have a clue as to what purpose these new applications might serve.
>
>
> I agree 100%. For at least 2 years now, I've seen a number of people in
> this ng say that we "need new applications" to revitalize packet radio.
But
> I've yet to see any of those people actually NAME any applications that
might
> be interesting.
>
> IMHO, if they really feel that strongly about it, they should quit wasting
their time
> whining about it, and instead look into what THEY can do to make packet
more
> interesting in their local area. If they did that, then they could get
out here and
> brag about their wonderful new application and how it's so much better
than plain
> old BBSes, and they can tell us all about how activity on their new
high-speed LAN
> is growing, rather than dying out. We might even end up modelling other
LANs
> after theirs.
>
> What's ironic (and sad) about the whole thing is that these folks chant
their
> applications mantra, yet the packet network isn't being obsoleted by some
> great new high-bandwidth application that it can't handle.... it's being
> abandoned for the one application that it handled quite well on its
own....
> plain ol' BBS message forwarding. How dumb.
>
>
> 73, Mike - KG9HF
>
>
>
>
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 23:56:51 -0500
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett <ab4bc@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7stfo3$rss@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com...
> Charles:
>
> Are you saying that sailors are ignorant?
No; Just your arguments.
Before you feel insulted, look up the word "ignorant". I used the word
accurately, with full knowledge of it's meaning. It applies to your
"reasoning" perfectly.
Once you have a firm grasp of the word's meaning, you can still feel
insulted if you like, but remember that it was your own ignorant argument
that insulted you, not the fact that I happened to point the situation out.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 00:54:00 -0500
From: "Mike Hughes" <mchughes@NOSPAM.netnitco.net>
Subject: Let's look at real numbers for TNC software sales
Peter O. Brackett wrote in message <7subqd$i9v@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>But Mike, prior to the advent of packet and BBS message forwarding, all
>amateur message forwarding was done quite well by the NTS CW traffic nets.
>
>Why did we allow amateurs to switch over to packet BBS forwarding and starve
>those NTS CW traffic nets by allowing the packet traffic to bypass the CW
>nets?
Why are you trying to confuse the issue? You're comparing apples to oranges!
Back then, it was simply a case of one mode competing with another. Whether
the traffic was being relayed via CW, packet, or whatever mode you prefer, it
was
still being sent via amateur radio. Either way, our frequencies were being
put
to good use.
In contrast, LLLids take traffic intended for amateur radio and relay it via a
completely different network that has absolutely nothing to do with amateur
radio.
As a result, our radio-based forwarding network is dying. And for every node
that
goes off the air, there's another amateur frequency that isn't being used, and
another
disillusioned ex-nodeop who probably won't want to do it again, even for some
great new application. As someone who recently bemoaned the fact that much of
our spectrum goes unused, and stressed the need to "use it or lose it", surely
you can see that this isn't a good thing for amateur radio.
73, Mike - KG9HF
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 19:12:17 +0200
From: "Piero" <picaruso@dontwriteme.com>
Subject: PSK31 and the interface
We could say that the divider (100/1) is mandatory.
Better to use a potentiometer
to set the exact ratio, according with the rig.
Furthermore, if you don't want to switch the rig by
hand, as I do at the moment,
a connection from serial port or the sound card (with
an external vox) is required.
Unless your are lucky and the vox on the rig can
correctly switch on and off.
73 de IK2VTJ, Piero.
http://ik2vtj.freeweb.org
http://www.qsl.net/ik2vtj
Join PSK! And possibly siwtch off PACTOR!
>.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 10:58:10 GMT
From: ea3tb@quitaesto.jet.es (EA3TB)
Subject: SOFTWARE FOR MFJ-1280
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 17:43:17 -0000, "mop59362"
<mop59362@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
>where can i find some software for mfj 1280?
>tks
>
>best regard's from azores
>
>carlos poinho cu3ft
>
Hola Carlos.....
Check my Wintty 1.6 Freeware Software at my Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6030/Wintty
or in Spanish under
http://personales.jet.es/cosme/wintty.htm
=====================================
Para responder quitar "quitaesto"
To answer remove "quitaesto"
ea3tb@quitaesto.jet.es
>.
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V99 #246
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
