On 2006-04-24 16:26, Andrew O'Brien quoted another site:
> "... some of the moderators of the digitalradio, oliviadata, mixw and psk31 Yahoo eGroups moderate with a tyrranical heavy hand and censor those that provide a dissenting viewpoint, very un-American and MARXIST."
Give me a break!
I have
Don't disable HTML viewing in your eMail reader; just disable it for
messages coming from Yahoo. That's what I do. Go to each of the yahoo
forums that you are a member of, and deselect HTML eMails.
-- Dean
On 2006-03-25 22:24, Bill Aycock wrote:
> Alan-
> Since ham radio is not my whole worl
Rather than trying to bait him, if what he said is so important to you,
why don't you go find his comment on the FCC site (that's not difficult)
and READ IT ???
I voted to allow this discussion to continue, because despite all the
personal attacks, there's been some good information from both s
ntage of amateurs to each decide they
want to queue a significant number of messages. If you have to be at
the radio when you transmit, that's self limiting. When you don't, the
potential for abuse is great.
-- Dean.
On 2006-01-24 13:25, mulveyraa2 wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@
Volume of traffic is the issue.
-- Dean
On 2006-01-24 12:40, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> Buddy,
>
> Why is the Amateur service more a free e-mail system to over-the-air
> licensed operators any more than it is a free phone system for those
> who use phone? I don't see anything in the 3rd party
Huh? That will be news to many PSK and packet operations that I know of.
-- Dean
On 2005-12-30 20:07, Steve Waterman, k4cjx wrote:
> ... /any/ digital transmission of data transfer greater than real-time
> typing speed is likely to be under remote control.
Yahoo! Grou
As a professional software developer for over 40 years, I can tell you
that I've NEVER been asked to put any type of "time-bomb" in any
software. To put such a "feature" in software that would be used in an
emergency is criminal. Modern cellphones are designed to be able to
make 911 calls whe
Modern communications technology has decoders that can rapidly adapt to
changing clock rates (floppy/CD/DVD drives are a good example). A more
significant problem with Morse is rapidly varying signal levels in real
life communications. However, if the technological effort that goes into
other c
Assuming that spam filtering is automatically based on content
is very naive; accusing someone of trying to restrict what you read
based on that assumption is silly.
I run my own mail server that has one of the most restrictive mail
filters on the planet, and not one iota of the filters is
Please set the clock in your computer to the current year, so that your
message sorts properly:
On 2004-06-24 07:48, Omar Shabsigh wrote:
> Hi Group;
>
> This is not an out of topic question. I want to connect my PC sound
> card to the FT-100D. I bought the mini DIN plug to insert in the
> F
You forgot to mention that most of the support calls come from people
who have pirated the software.
At least that was my experience when I sold software in the hobby
Heathkit market (for the H-89).
-- Dean
On 2005-06-20 18:37, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>Nothing is wrong with remuneration, but th
On 2005-05-03 02:46, martinbradford2001 wrote:
>--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew J. O'Brien"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>"If so, I believe that it is sending entirely the wrong
>message to both amateur radio programmers and users."
>...
>
>As a professional software developer,
Inappropriate for this list.
-- Dean
On 2005-04-20 20:16, Harv Nelson wrote:
> 73
>
> Harv
[image deleted]
The K3UK DIGITAL MODES SPOTTING CLUSTER AT telnet://208.15.25.196/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/
<*>
On 2005-04-15 09:06, Joel Kolstad wrote:
> As for "special people get special rules," you yourself said that
> youmade your junior programming team members get permission from the
> senior members if they felt they needed a GOTO... hence you're giving
> "special rules" to "special people" too.
On 2005-04-14 19:38, Joel Kolstad wrote:
>Hi Dean,
>
>I think that our basic difference comes down to me being one of those people
>who believes that "rules were meant to be broken" and that "special people get
>special rules."
>
I can't believe you actually believe that. Wow!
The K3UK DIG
On 2005-04-14 13:37, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>... you have no grounds on which to blame the application's poor quality on
>the comm library rather than on the author.
>
>
Having written numerous communications programs at the interrupt level,
I think I have the experience to say that there is a
On 2005-04-14 13:47, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>Gates should have stayed in school and taken the rest of Harvard's CS courses;
>he'd have saved us all a lot of grief.
>
>
I agree, although my personal experience with people that quit college
after three years, is that the problem is not that they
On 2005-04-14 16:52, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>Suppose, for example, you were tasked with updating one module of a 3
>million line of code Fortran II application still in use by a
>government agency. Would you constraint yourself to not use GO TO
>statements in a language without iterators or exi
On 2005-04-14 16:52, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>I ddid not misquote you. In message 10591, you said in reference to GOTO
>statements
>
>"Back in 1973, when structured programming was advanced, there were people who
>previously used them responsibly, and those who didn't."
>
>Does this statement no
On 2005-04-14 13:58, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>As you acknowledge below, it doesn't mean that they *never* should be used.
>
Huh? I have never acknowledged that. I not only think they should
NEVER, ever be used, I think they should be banned, and I think they
should be removed from languages (a
On 2005-04-14 09:06, Joel Kolstad wrote:
> Prior to decent exception handling (introduced with C++), you could
> make a pretty good argument that GOTOs were preferable than not using
> them in the case where you were already buried down many layers deep
> in "hierarchy" and detected an error c
On 2005-04-14 09:25, Joel Kolstad wrote:
> Lots of vendors have really crappy install routines that replace the
> most recent, downwardly compatible versions of some DLL with
> theversion they developed with that of course isn't upwardly compatible.
Who knows if that was true in this case. Of
On 2005-04-13 20:20, Dave Bernstein wrote:
> ### At present, I don't use GOTOs. However, if I were to learn auseful
> new technique for, say, limiting the impact of non-upward-compatible
> changes to externally visible interfaces, and the only way to exploit
> this technique meant using GOTOs,
On 2005-04-13 21:46, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>The clear message to software developers is that Microsoft can't be trusted to
>provide an upward compatible path.
>
>
A message that was first sent 1991 when Microsoft charged developers
$3000 (fortunately, I was not one of them) for the SDK for OS
On 2005-04-13 13:22, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>http://www.appforge.com/products/enterprise/crossfire/index.html
>
>
Well, we'll just have to disagree on this. As for the above link, I
found the statement "/AppForge Crossfire uses industry standard tools
and languages such as Microsoft C#, Visua
On 2005-04-12 22:22, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>Perhaps your definition of "Professional Programmer" is different than mine,
>but when I last checked VB (including VB.net) was in the top 5, if not the top
>3, among professional developers.
According to whom, Microsoft? How many serious commercia
I see I stirred up a hornet's nest. Good! That's one way to get good
information:
I wasn't counting off-shore amateur radio operations; clearly amateur
radio is much more valuable in countries with a less-developed
infrastructure. However, the frequency of incidents in this country
where
I'll get the new version. I downloaded the previous one and it
burned/worked OK, with one caveat:
In a text mode window (Alt-Shift-F2), it was apparently able to operate
the display in 1600x1200 mode, but in the GUI window it was only
1024x768. A couple months ago someone loaded me a Knoppix
A magazine that is more oriented toward OF's and tinkerers than new
amateurs. To each his own, but for me the magazine is worthless.
-- Dean
On 2005-04-12 12:00, Rick Williams wrote:
>The way I figure it, ARRL dues are basically free. And you get a high quality
>magazine thrown in too!
>
On 2005-04-11 22:21, Dave Bernstein wrote:
>That's a naive perspective. What reward do virus writers gain though their
>efforts?
>
> 73, Dave, AA6YQ
>
>
I agree. A few years ago, who would have thought that spammers would:
1. Troll web pages, newsgroups, and mailing lists for eMail
30 matches
Mail list logo
