| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 13.03.03 10:38l 297 Lines 9109 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1011-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Mar 09, 1/2
Path: DB0FHN<DB0ZWI<DB0CHZ<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0IUZ<DB0GOS<DB0EEO<PI8DAZ<PI8HWB<
ON0AR<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030312/1114Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:61522 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1011-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, March 09, 2003.
1. Re: Emergency ??
2. Re: Emergency ??
3. Re: Emergency ??
4. Re: Emergency ??
5. Re: Emergency ??
6. Re: Emergency ??
7. Re: Emergency ??
8. Re: Emergency ??
9. Re: Emergency ??
10. Packet error problem
11. Re: Packet error problem
12. RE: Packet error problem
13. Re: Emergency ??
14. RE: APRS everywhere in USA.
15. RE: APRS everywhere in USA.
16. aprs+SA ?
17. pcsat on rubber duck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:26:06 -0500
X-Message-Number: 1
I see a lotta the "emergency " messages reported on this reflector that are
bogus. I think that it is again the FCC Rules to send a false distress
call. Maybe if RH will nail a couple, this will stop!
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:57:58 -0500
X-Message-Number: 2
On 3/9/03 at 8:26 AM wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net (Ronald Reams) sent:
>I see a lotta the "emergency " messages reported on this
>reflector that are bogus. I think that it is again the FCC
>Rules to send a false distress call. Maybe if RH will nail
>a couple, this will stop!
There is a world of difference between someone that can't set up their D700
correctly, and someone who gets on a repeater yelling "Mayday". One deserves
punishment, one deserves education.
Steve K4HG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Richard Garcia" <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 09:20:32 -0500
X-Message-Number: 3
We also got to stop this crying to the FCC about every little thing and
GROW UP! Get a life and do something about it yourself! We are not in
Kindergarten anymore, take some accountability and so something.
Rich K4GPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:11:30 -0500
X-Message-Number: 4
Rich, we tried that for a few years (too many actually) and ham radio went
into the sewer. Now that the FCC is back in the pink slip business,
violations will get you more than an OO card and things are slowly
improvin'.
Steve, I don't know about ignorance bein' an excuse.
Seems that I recall hearin' it the other way around.
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:16:22 -0500
X-Message-Number: 5
I never agreed with the vigilantee approach of handlin' things my own self,
Rich. Although, pinin' coax, jammin', late night visits, etc, gives you
some satisfaction, you've lowered your own self to their level and then
you're no better than them.
I think it best to let those that are impowered to do so, handle it.
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "K8YS/N8LBR" <jbcraft@adelphia.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:55:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 6
I see a lotta the "emergency " messages reported on this reflector that are
bogus. I think that it is again the FCC Rules to send a false distress
call. Maybe if RH will nail a couple, this will stop!
73 de Ronnie
NOT A GOOD IDEA! You may not like the reaction for the Commission...
They could just go and rule that the ability to send "help" messages
should be banned...
Never give the FCC a chance to "reduce work load".
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Doug Younker" <dougy@ruraltel.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 11:02:11 -0600
X-Message-Number: 7
From what I have read from reports of FCC actions the initial FCC contact
for things less than willful malicious activity do not begin with the cuffs
and a trip to the station but, with a notice not unlike a card from a, calm
non-wannabe OO . Perhaps those who would ignore an OO would pay more
attention to a notice from the FCC. Not knowing any perfect individuals and
given the complexity of modern menu setup of radios, I have problems with
initial bouts of ignorance being dealt with education.--73
Doug, N0LKK
dougy@ruraltel.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Ronald Reams" <wa4mjf@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:42:49 -0500
X-Message-Number: 8
I seriously doubt that the FCC would ban distress calls!
73 de Ronnie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: "Richard Garcia" <k4gps@bellsouth.net>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:45:05 -0500
X-Message-Number: 9
I never implied to become the Charles Bronson of the Amateur community!
There is no excuse for malicious actions to counter act something you do
not agree with but there is nothing wrong with a club or individual to
contact someone and try to inform them IN A PLESANT WAY about a problem.
Try to work out the problem, hey he/she may be new and unaware, do we not
all try to help each other out as amateurs ? If we don't all try to help
each other out we have lost something over the years. I remember when all
hams helped each other out and I think that may be a big problem in the
hobby now, or lack of.
If that does not work on a widespread problem then contact a ARRL OOS, then
let them make the call.
As the famous saying goes.. Can't we all get along ???
Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Packet error problem
From: Earl Needham <needhame@yucca.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 13:20:21 -0700
X-Message-Number: 10
I have a neighbor who occasionally operates APRS, and using AGWPE and
WinAPRS at my end, his position packets look like this:
XXXXXX>APW246,RELAY,WIDE:@090514z3443.40N/10322.78W-110/000/ -246-<530>
Obviously, there is something wrong with the packet, and it won't display
in WinAPRS. The little boxes shown above are actually spades (like in
cards) when they show up.
Using WinAPRS to connect DIRECTLY to the TNC, his packets look like this:
XXXXXX>APW246,RELAY,WIDE:@090601z3443.40N/10322.78W-110/000/ -246-<530>
And these show up fine.
So -- uh -- what's the deal with AGWPE??? *I'M* confused...
Thanks,
Earl
Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico DM84jk
KD5XB-2>APW251,PCSAT-1%:=3425.83N/10313.55W-PHG7150/WinAPRS 2.5.1
-EARL_CLOVIS -251-<630>
SETI@Home: 10476WU/6.84yrs!
Spambot Bait:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
spam@primenet.com
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
mailto:root@[127.0.0.1]
admin@[127.0.0.1]
billing@[127.0.0.1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Packet error problem
From: Earl Needham <needhame@yucca.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 13:55:02 -0700
X-Message-Number: 11
At 01:20 PM 3/9/2003 -0700, Earl Needham wrote:
>I have a neighbor who occasionally operates APRS, and using AGWPE
>and WinAPRS at my end, his position packets look like this:
>
>XXXXXX>APW246,RELAY,WIDE:@090514z3443.40N/10322.78W-110/000/
>-246-<530>
How strange -- the boxes didn't go through. If they had, the
boxes would be where the ='s are:
XXXXXX>APW246,RELAY,WIDE:====@090508z3443.40N/10322.78W-110/000/
-246-<530>
Thanks,
Earl
Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico DM84jk
KD5XB-2>APW251,PCSAT-1%:=3425.83N/10313.55W-PHG7150/WinAPRS 2.5.1
-EARL_CLOVIS -251-<630>
SETI@Home: 10476WU/6.84yrs!
Spambot Bait:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
spam@primenet.com
abuse@[127.0.0.1]
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
mailto:root@[127.0.0.1]
admin@[127.0.0.1]
billing@[127.0.0.1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Packet error problem
From: Bill Diaz <william.diaz@attbi.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:15:16 -0600
X-Message-Number: 12
Earl,
I think the offending characters at the beginning of the payLoad
(Chr(05)) are added by WinAprs when configured for use with a GPS. Don't
recall exactly, but I think this is the LGetChar that is used to switch
between the ports on a dual port TNC such as the Pico Packet.
I think those char are sent to the TNC by WinAprs periodically. In any
case, the chars end up being inserted into the payload. Not unusual to see
5 or more of these char in some WinAprs payloads.
Perhaps someone else has a better exlanation?
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Emergency ??
From: blitz <blitz@macronet.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 16:21:56 -0500
X-Message-Number: 13
Got THAT right....and the FCC is NEVER an option, the less dealing you have
with gooberment idiots and thugs the better off you are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
