| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 18.07.00 22:48l 208 Lines 7176 Bytes #-9312 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_188C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/188C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<F6KFG<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 000713/2348Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:61308 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_188C
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 00 23:51:09 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_188C>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
--
... Hank
http://horedson.home.att.net
>.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:29:09 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <ro0b5.5992$bR6.472086@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net> wrote:
things is not "doing ham radio."
> >
> > If there is a "ham radio" involved in the equation - then it IS ham
> > radio. When you talk thru the local repeater's phone patch - is
THAT
> > not ham radio? Of course it is, and so is using radios to "patch"
thru
> > the Internet to other radio gateways - the transmission medium is
just
> > a little different, that's all. I guess it is just too reliable,
and
> > too easy for some of you guys - you just HAVE to do things the hard
> > way, or just don't like change. Pretty stupid, if you ask me.
> >
>
> Yeah right.
> That telephone link you use via the repeater is ham radio?
> Gimme a break.
>
> Connecting to a local gateway system in the UK, then over the
internet,
> and then out another gateway system in NZ is ham radio too?
> "Gee, I just worked New Zealand on two meters! The band is open!"
> Does the ARRL accept that QSL card for DXCC?
> No? Imagine my surprise.
Since when do you think I care what the Analog Radio Relay League
thinks?
> The point about the internet gateways is simple: sure they are fun,
> sure you and the other ham involved MIGHT be using ham radio
> for the uplink and downlink, but what's the point? All either one of
> you did was make a local contact on some VHF/UHF band.
> Whoop-de-doo, big deal. Nearly zero radio skill involved.
Calculating fresnel zone clearances, so you can determine and build
your towers to produce reliable links is "no radio skill", huh? How
about mounting your radios/computers in survivable NEMA boxes on high
towers to cut down feedline loses? Sorry, but you are suffering
from "radio myopia". You only seem to be able to see below 30Mhz,
(sometimes 54Mhz). I know, let's build a 2m Internet gateway using
sporadic-E and meteor scatter links!
> Do the same thing with all links via ham radio and I'll give some
> ham (the creators of the gateways) a bit of credit ...
You seem to be drifting off to talk about those unreliable HF links;
they are for the birds...
> "... the transmission medium is just a little different ..." ???
> Yes, it IS different. It is not radio! Duh.
So, let me get this straight - the electrical signals passing thru your
radio are OK, but those passing thru the Internet, somehow aren't?
> ... Hank
>
> http://horedson.home.att.net
Stewart - N0MHS
--
Wireless High-Speed Networking Information:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html
Public Radio Services Information:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio2.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:45:57 -0500
From: Jeff Kilgore <kilgore@dev.tivoli.com>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
Very eloquently put, and I completely agree. For me, the internet is a
very useful tool, but it holds very little fascination for me in and of
itself. It is an adjunt to other, more important areas of my life.
73,
Jeff, KC1MK
Jeff Goodspeed wrote:
>
> I like Will's position. I too feel the "magical" element of global
> communication without using wires. I enjoy being at the "mercy" of natures
> interactions of sun and ionosphere.
>
> I also see a cultural element in this topic. Communication via the internet
> implies a total dependence on society with the subjugation of the
> individual in the act. No one can communicate from point A to point B via
> the internet without tens of thousands of other people showing up to work,
> keeping the multi billion dollar network humming. The internet communicator
> hits the carriage return key which in turn grovels to the Internet Service
> Provider for permission to have the puny little packet transported over the
> behemoth. The sender of the information can take about as much pride in
> completing the communication as he can in forcing the sun to rise in the
> east each morning.
>
> Point to point radio communication on the other hand is more an expression
> of rugged individualism. The radio operator is in control of the
> communication process and only needs the cooperation of the receiving party
> to complete the transaction. Entire societies can rise and crumble without
> impacting two individuals communicating via radio.
>
> Which of these two would give you something to feel pride in?
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 23:05:07 GMT
From: horseshoestew@my-deja.com
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
In article <396CAED5.19E105B5@dev.tivoli.com>,
Jeff Kilgore <kilgore@dev.tivoli.com> wrote:
> Very eloquently put, and I completely agree. For me, the internet is a
> very useful tool, but it holds very little fascination for me in and
of
> itself. It is an adjunt to other, more important areas of my life.
By the way "Internet" should be capitalized. When not capitalized, it
means something completely different(a local internet - like in a lab,
or in a house).
A very useful tool, huh? If television had such good reviews during
its infancy - where would it be by now. "The" Internet is more than
just a very useful tool. It has only been around for a short while,
but it is already changing the world.
I bet you don't have a cable modem, or DSL hookup yet, huh? That's OK,
you can tap into mine - via RADIO!
> 73,
> Jeff, KC1MK
Stewart - N0MHS
--
Wireless High-Speed Networking Information:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio.html
Public Radio Services Information:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Monitor/2254/radio2.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:17:36 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Forget HF & CW - Think Digital
<horseshoestew@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8kitiq$9l9$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <396CAED5.19E105B5@dev.tivoli.com>,
> Jeff Kilgore <kilgore@dev.tivoli.com> wrote:
> > Very eloquently put, and I completely agree. For me, the internet is a
> > very useful tool, but it holds very little fascination for me in and
> of
> > itself. It is an adjunt to other, more important areas of my life.
>
> By the way "Internet" should be capitalized. When not capitalized, it
> means something completely different(a local internet - like in a lab,
> or in a house).
Reference please.
> A very useful tool, huh? If television had such good reviews during
> its infancy - where would it be by now. "The" Internet is more than
> just a very useful tool. It has only been around for a short while,
> but it is already changing the world.
Yes, only for 30+ years ... a short time compared to, say, radio (grin!)
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_188D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
