| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 16.03.00 15:30l 241 Lines 7333 Bytes #-9546 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_73C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/73C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0SHL<DB0MW<DB0ROF<DB0SRS<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<
DB0ME<ON6AR<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<PE1MVX<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 000314/1435Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:55993 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA31392 ; Tue, 14 Mar 00 13:49:07 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00018373 ; Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:33:27 MET
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:26:49 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_73C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 2000/73C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
> > news:38CB30B6.EB3E3EF2@source.net...
> > > Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>
> > > What snuffed interest in amateur wireless networking was the combination
> > of
> > > rapid Internet growth (via wired connections), the virtual inability of
> > amateurs
> > > to deploy infrastructure even remotely competitive with what was
happening
> > > in inexpensive commodity modems, and the absolute fixation of most
> > amateurs
> > > with just shuffling bits around, rather than thinking about the
> > *services*.
> >
> > This may hold true within the LandLine Lid community, but not elsewhere.
> > Remember that the LLLids are the only ones worried about "competing" with
> > the Internet. Everybody else has got more sense than that, and realize
that
> > Packet was never intended to "compete" with commercial, non-ham
> > communications services in the first place.
>
> Intentional or not, packet most certainly found itself competing with the
> Internet (I'm going to simply ignore your specious and irelevant reference
> to "LandLine Lids").
The Land Line Lids might have thought they were competing with the
internet, but most hams did not and do not. It is about RADIO, not
about PROTOCOLS or about COMMUNICATING. Duh ...
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:20:49 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
In article <8ae6tc02s03@enews4.newsguy.com>,
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
>
> <horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8abv3c$784>
>
> > I expanded newsgroups, because I think it relates to policy, and ham
> > radio in general. If we can't hook amateur radio into the
Internet, we
> > might as well fold up the tent. If we CAN hook amateur radio into
the
> > Internet, we are in for another GOLDEN AGE OF HAM RADIO.
> >
>
> I hate to be the one to break it to you, but we've been able to hook
Amateur
> Radio into the Internet for a little over ten years now, Einstein.
No kidding... I didn't know that... But seriously - why don't you bug
off - you are seriously raising the newsgroup noise level, making it
difficult to carry on any kind of intelligent conversation.
> What followed was not a "GOLDEN AGE". In fact, the general level of
interest
> in Packet Radio took a nose-dive about the same time that Amateur
tcpip came
> into it's own. Figure it out for yourself. Can you say, "LandLine
Lids"?
>
> "Golden Age".... That's really funny!
You seem to one of those guys that miss the meaning of posts, and tries
to talk about things they know nothing about. By the way - it is
TCP/IP, not tcpip; and the first golden age I was referring to was when
HF really was a more useful communications medium.
> --
>
> 73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
Stewart - N0MHS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 05:23:57 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Sampson" <ssampson@usa-site.net>
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.digital.misc
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Amateur Radio License
> "Hank Oredson" wrote
> >
> > Note that all that obfuscation you provided says nothing at all
> > about what should (or even what can) happen when a message
> > cannot be delivered.
>
> Probably because I have a life. Read the RFC is my answer, get
> a Unix box and watch, is another possibility.
Which RFC, Steve?
I have a "unix box", always have had, since unix became available.
> > There are NO "guarantees" Steve, none at all, in either network.
> > It is all "best effort".
>
> I didn't say there was grandpa, I mentioned that packet BBS has no
> mail receipt, and that SMTP mail does.
As others have pointed out, this is incorrect.
> I didn't propose a statistical
> summary, or technical essay on why this may not occur. I was making
> it a distinct possibility as to why the ARRL or any Ham club doesn't
> use packet radio BBS as their Ham mail distribution system.
It is clear why the ARRL does not, as others pointed out.
Some ham clubs do in fact use packet radio as the means to
distribute their newsletters. Why continue to denigrate Ham Radio?
> > If you think there are "guarantees" ... quote the RFCs instead of
> > babbling about protocols and address translations.
>
> Cute. You're beginning to wear me down grandpa...
Thank you for the sobriquet honoring my long experience!
You failed to quote the RFCs.
Wonder why?
Want a URL so you can find them?
Aw heck, here is a clue, free of charge: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/
All the RFCs, STDs, et al available to read.
Which one tells about guaranteed delivery?
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:10:22 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Digital Amateur Radio License
In article <8adj6i02gns@enews2.newsguy.com>,
"Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote:
>
> Brian Kantor <brian@karoshi.ucsd.edu> wrote in message
> news:8abd71$rc3$1@karoshi.ucsd.edu...
> > Carl R. Stevenson <wa6vse@fast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >Now, I would be in favor of loosening restrictions on content on
packet
> to
> > >the degree which would permit the ampr.org domain to become a more
> > >useful part of the internet, both for amateur purposes and for the
> ability
> > >to
> > >interconnect to the internet more easily for the purposes of
emergency
> and
> > >disaster communications.
> >
>
> First, one LandLine Lid suggests that we drop all decency provisions
from
> Ham Radio in order to further alleged "emergency distaster
communicatuions"
> needs that are hard to take seriously from a Lid who has run down
Amateur
> Radio and Packet Radio for years, making it plain that he could care
less
> about others, unless SAYING he does so will further his personal
desires.
>
> > Ham radio is essentially irrelevent to modern emergency and disaster
> > communications, as you very well know. We hams have little or
nothing
> > to offer anymore; our services have been eclipsed by modern
technology
> > in the hands of professionals.
> >
> > ampr.org and the amprnet are primarily for research, development,
and
> > recreation. It should not be depended upon for production or
safety use.
>
> Then an even bigger LandLine Lid shows up to urinate all over the
entire
> concept of Amateur emergency communications (and Amateur Radio) to
support
> his "point" that Amateur tcpip should never be used to help people
out in an
> emergency.
>
> Maybe Brian's right though, and maybe that's why tcpip has never
really been
> useful when paired up with Amateur Radio. For my part, I think Hams
will get
> awfully tired of trying to make tcpip "fit in" with the hobby, once
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_73D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
