| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 12.10.00 22:26l 175 Lines 6014 Bytes #-8618 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_2000_279B
Read: DB0FHN GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 2000/279B
Path: DB0ABH<DB0LAN<DB0RBS<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<PI8HGL
Sent: 001012/1640Z @:PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU #:24280 [Den Haag] FBB $:HD_2000_279B
From: PA2AGA@PI8HGL.#ZH1.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 00 17:43:48 MET
Message-Id: <hd_2000_279B>
From: pa2aga@pe1mvx.ampr.org
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga.ampr.org
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
involved? So I say create first and then change the rules to back up
your new
benefit, if needed. Sure move to MURS or Part 15 or whatever if you
need to.
Yet, What's happening to Amateur Radio?
A pet peeve of mine is the "Amateur" in Amateur Radio. Just a thought.
Why
not call it Scientific Radio instead? Are we not promoting professional
operator techniques? Professional doesn't mean money per say. It means
professional. It means practiced. It means wise and it means benefits
with
communications. Is there a problem with calling it Scientific Radio? I
guess
we'll always be Hams. That is, if we still have a band to use.
It would be nice if "Hams" were thought of as being smart and not smart
asses. Watch out that you're not a smart *ass*. Sure be technical but
get
real. We need to respect all operators regardless of technical
knowledge. Many spouses both technical and not so technical have joined
in and all to our benefit. Plus, few debate the need to attract a young
person (or old) who is just learning.
Further, why not even be known for caring first. Care about people.
Isn't that the reason for communication in the first place? Let's add
to our
ability to care for people, like when we connect them to their loved
ones in
an emergency. Let's be known for our scientific innovation AND how it
benefits all. Let's even be known for pointing out where big business
seeks
to control the airwaves and our pocket books. Why not make free wireless
communications available to the masses. Why not? Who say's we must pay
a toll? It's completely up to you.
Further I'll even say we need privacy and that includes encryption. Now
I
realize this is very controversial. I will tell you why. We need
innovation
in our thinking here. The standard government rant goes like this...we
can't
give encryption to the public, they say. Then some evil interest would
communicate about destroying us and we wouldn't be able to listen in.
Therefore (they say) our freedom is in jeopardy. They say it's a
national
security issue. So they control our privacy for the sake of security.
This
is in fact, our current situation if you didn't know it. We have no
communications privacy.
So what's the problem with that? After all, what do you have to hide,
right?
WRONG! Have you not heard about the epidemic of identity theft for one
example? Do you believe everyone and anyone has a right to know
anything and
everything about you? I think that's God's job. It is not the
governments.
We are allowing the government to trade our privacy for security. Well
isn't
privacy a freedom we have fought and our forefathers have died for all
these years.
Isn't that like giving up the war to all comers, anyway? I believe it
was
Ben Franklin who said "If you give up your privacy for security, you
will
have NEITHER!". The problem is the men in government seek to *CONTROL*
those not in government unfairly. Why is it OK for our government to
have privacy
and not it's people? If you see the government as your savior, I
suggest what you don't know *can* hurt you. This has never been as
important as it is today. Many
are now realizing all too late, their privacy matters. Don't be too
late, it
matters.
So if you're one of the few who truly promote innovation and you are
kind
enough to do it with Amateur Radio, please don't give up. Focus on real
communication benefits for people. Embrace change and do something
about it.
73
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 18:31:50 GMT
From: "O.C." <mortuus1952@my-deja.com>
Subject: New tnos tcp/ip bbs gateway and ww convers system
David <kb9lpk@telocity.com> wrote:
> > Hank wrote:
> > [snip]
> > You are dead meat.
> > [snip]
> > But this whole topic has nothing at all to do with
> > ham radio.
>
> Humm? FCC thinks it does but oh well sorry to bother
> you! Thanks for your
> input! Still trying it. and Hacking is a way of life.
> Never know until you try eh.
You´re experimenting? Perish the thought!
wn1z
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 07:36:25 GMT
From: hamish@cloud.net.au (Hamish Moffatt VK3SB)
Subject: No waterfall - what am I doing wrong??
Rob Janssen <nomail@rob.knoware.nl> wrote:
> And even with multiple different architectures, the writers of DSP
> applications complain about lack of features and access the soundcard
> directly, not via the drivers. So a card that works fine for generic Linux
> sound may still fail when used for DSP modems.
Well, I heard that Tom Sailer is working on a new version of
the soundmodem that runs in userspace and uses the normal OSS
sound drivers. The NEWQPSK implementation for Linux already does
this, as does the latest hfmodem stuff.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:25:34 GMT
From: nomail@rob.knoware.nl (Rob Janssen)
Subject: No waterfall - what am I doing wrong??
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@cloud.net.au> wrote:
>Rob Janssen <nomail@rob.knoware.nl> wrote:
>> And even with multiple different architectures, the writers of DSP
>> applications complain about lack of features and access the soundcard
>> directly, not via the drivers. So a card that works fine for generic Linux
>> sound may still fail when used for DSP modems.
>Well, I heard that Tom Sailer is working on a new version of
>the soundmodem that runs in userspace and uses the normal OSS
>sound drivers. The NEWQPSK implementation for Linux already does
>this, as does the latest hfmodem stuff.
Ah... I may have another look at it. Fortunately I am now running OSS,
as my new soundcard is not supported by ALSA. But my old soundcard was,
To be continued in digest: hd_2000_279C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
