[ARC5] On Hacking

[hwhall at compuserve.com]

 > The 'improvement' was being able to get on the air vs. not.
 
Whether a change is an improvement sometimes has to be looked at in context of use. I think I read that? "bandspreading" and some other changes shouldn't be counted as improvements, just ham conveniences.? If they made the equipment more ham-usable, when they being used by a ham, then I think they were improvements in that context. Minor improvements, perhaps, but improvements.

Wayne
WB4OGM



-----Original Message-----
From: Todd, KA1KAQ <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
To: ARC-5 Mail List <ARC5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [ARC5] On Hacking

 
 
 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:39 PM, J. Forster <jfor at quikus.com> wrote: 
 
> All right, you proponents of 'ham improvements' to ARC-5 gear 
> 
 
I don't recall anyone ever making that argument. 
 
The overall argument is that surplus played a large role in giving new or 
not-so-well-healed hams access to the airwaves and inspiration to learn 
more, try more, take it further. They became the engineers, technicians and 
so on who were part of the bigger picture of innovation and improvement, 
not a bunch of idiots with pliers and hammers who set about smashing 
pristine surplus daily for something to do. 
 
And that this very surplus market is what we owe a debt of gratitude to, 
for providing so much of what we have and still find today that is 
untouched, NIB and so on. 
 
The 'improvement' was being able to get on the air vs. not. Simple stuff, 
really. 
 
~ Todd/KAQ 
______________________________________________________________ 
ARC5 mailing list 
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5 
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm 
Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net 
 
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net 
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html