Yes, I actually do use morse code. I'm one of those geezers who really did pass the 20 word per minute test in morse code to get my Amateur Extra Class license. I still copy the 18 WPM W1AW morse bulletins for fun.

I have a funny story to tell in this regard. I was taking my code test at the FCC offices in Washington DC. I had planned to take the written exam on the same day. In my pocket were my keys and a spare battery for my calculator.

It was a nine volt battery. I guess most of you can figure out what happened next. There I was in the middle of my five minute code test and I began to feel a burning sensation on my leg. This was a comprehension test. In earlier days you had to copy exactly one minute of the five error free. However this test was a multiple choice test that would give you several different spellings of each thing such as the other station's location, their exact call sign, and other such things. You had to pay attention for the whole thing.

And there I was with a very strong burning sensation in my pocket as my fresh 9 volt battery was shorting out. Mercifully, before the battery gave me a second degree burn, the test ended. I jumped out of my seat, and carefully extracted the sizzling battery out of my pocket.

I passed the tests. And I didn't even need the calculator. :-)

CW OPS DT DIE, QSB
DE AB3A

I grew up in DC. Congressional Delegate Norton is not bad for a politician. Sadly, she has no authority. She can say what she wants. All it does is maybe help arrange meetings with her congressional colleagues. But they don't usually pay attention to her unless there is something in it for them.

Nevertheless, regardless of what kinds of rules we make, the size and ubiquity of cameras makes such legislation pointless. It's like trying to legislate CD copying with speedy $30 CD burners and 10 cent CD blanks being common.

Legislators can legislate that pi must equal 3. It doesn't change the facts on the ground. Judges tell us that ignorance is no excuse for the law. We need a similar dictum for our politicians: Ignorance of science and technology is no excuse for a bad law.

@#52 DEIDZOB: Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I'm talking about trends and you're taking what I said personally.

I dispute the notion that the calculation was strictly financial for larger families in the 60s and 70s. I think it had more to do with the new options for birth control not yet becoming popular in families. Nevertheless, your point is valid: Given the safety and availability of birth control, this is a strong motivation toward having smaller families.

In any case, the notion of the helicopter parent is a relatively new thing. When children from larger families outnumbered the one and two child families, there was a certain social reality that is not present in today's society: People used to look after each other's children. They had to. Parents couldn't be everywhere at once.

My wife and I would probably be financially independent now, were it not for our children. However, when retirement comes, remember us. Our children will be the ones who make your retirement possible. Or you could do what the Europeans are trying: Bring in a large stream of immigrants to make up for the shrinking population. Then they have to hope that they assimilate enough to keep supporting the country's social programs in to their old age (I wish them the best of luck with that, because I'm afraid there is a good chance they're going to need it).

@#18 NIDSQUID: Thanks, but I didn't come up with this observation myself. It comes from seeing the cousins and school kids my children play with and what sorts of homes they live in. And I've noticed that the more children there tended to be in the family, the more well behaved most of them were.

Oh, and having a very bright sister-in-law who brings helicoptering to a new level is very instructional too. The rest is pure extrapolation from what my wife and I had had to learn and do after our third child was born.

It's amazing what kids can teach you...

As a father of three young children under the age of 10, let me say that most of the people commenting against "free-range kids" here have a very poor perspective of risk and reward.

Part of the problem with the risk-reward calculation is that those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s came from larger families with four to six children. Birth control was less common. These days, a family with more than two children is considered large. More than four children is regarded as unusual. And yet I grew up in a family of five and my wife grew up in a family of six. See the contrast?

I notice many parents regarding their children as precious possessions instead of interesting personalities. It's not that I care for my children any less than someone who has only one child. It's that we have to carefully plan our time with each of them because my wife and I are simply outnumbered. I have to teach them survival skills because I can't give each of them individual attention whenever they might want it.

In other words, the parents of families with one or two children often lose the perspective that larger families have. And this leads to a lack of understanding of who their child really is, and what they are capable of.

Sigh. We can call these phones anything you want: Cell phones, Wireless, PCS, whatever. It is still just a fancy radio.

It's a RADIO, people! It broadcasts and it receives! So someone figured out how to listen to one. Gee. I did that for years before it was made illegal by the ignorant Electronics Communication Privacy Act (ECPA) in 1996.

That legislation was a classic example of technological ignorance. The paradigm ECPA replaced was called Radio Secrecy. It was the foundation for a very well conceived section in the Communications Act of 1934.

Radio Secrecy recognized that we can't easily control where a radio signal may be received. Thus anyone can receive anything, but if they profit from or use that signal without permission of both parties, it is illegal.

This is yet another anti-techie abomination. If you wonder why kids aren't interested in technical subjects such as radio, you have only to read crap-weasel legislation such as the ECPA.

I can only conclude that if Congress feels stupid, they'll make sure that nobody else will want to be smarter.

I doubt anyone is likely to invent a "non-lethal" weapon that is also good for you at the same time.

Non-lethal means just that. By the way, Tear gas (CS), tasers, and rubber bullets aren't exactly benign either.

The goal is to disperse unruly crowds of people. These crowds may be angry about losing a sports game, or inflamed about a court verdict. There are lots of relatively ordinary things which can cause a mob to riot. I hate to say this, but many police forces should have some form of non-lethal weaponry to disperse crowds. And if this fits the bill for some, then they should use it --with care.

To the folk here who detest religion as a practice, understand that religion creates and supports culture and civilizations. Without it, we'd have no reason to do anything to further our civilizations. Acts of honesty and good samaritans, charity, and so forth are acts of faith. Whether that faith is a formal organized religion or self directed secular humanism, it is still a faith in one's fellow humans. It is a religion of sorts.

However, religion should not dominate everything. This is where the West has actually gotten things right. Unfortunately, Fundamentalist Islam does not recognize a separation of Mosque and State. This is what is causing scary things like this blasphemy conviction to happen.

When any religion crosses that line, it becomes toxic to Western Philosophy. Whether you're a liberal, conservative, libertarian, left, or right, these acts are not helpful for anyone.

The only question we should be discussing is what to do about it. Those who do nothing are allowing evil to go forward. This is how Rwanda happened. This is how Bosnia happened. This is how Holocausts get started.

What ever happened to "Never Again!"?

Uhh, guys, next time you need to doctor up a picture of telecommuncations media, don't doctor up pictures of power transmission lines. m'kay?