Introducing StationBase--A Tool for DX'ers

It's funny. I've been a DX'er for about 42 years--not that I'm old now (I'm about to turn 54). I started DX'ing when I was twelve, and over the years I keep coming back to it.

What's DX'ing? Fair question. DX'ing is listening to the radio in an attempt to hear stations over long distances. This can involve many different bands and methods of reception; from ham and VHF/UHF bands, to the AM and FM broadcast bands. It can be active, such as involving radio amateurs trying to conduct conversations over long distances. It can be passive, such as sitting up late with an AM receiver, trying to identify that faint signal on 1640 KHz.

In my case, and many others', I've settled on the AM broadcast band, which runs from 530 KHz to 1700 KHz in North America. Over 30 years of on-again, off-again listening, I've managed to bag nearly 600 stations. This is a very radio-dirty location; the band is always humming with radio noise, so DX is a bit difficult to come by. to date, I think my farthest catch was Vatican Radio (Rome), broadcasting a newsmagazine-type show on 1611 Khz, early one morning in the late nineties. To date, my only translatlantic reception.

Naturally, keeping records straight on 600 stations isn't an easy task. So, I decided years ago to keep my records electronically. I've progressed through dBASE, WordPerfect, MS Word, and Excel. Each solution was subtoptimal, and I found myself spending as much time trying to keep my records straight as actually listening to the radio.

I searched for software. There wasn't much, and most of it seemed to be aimed at hams.

"I know," said I; "I'll put my web-application development talents to use and program something!"

And so began the birth of StationBase. It's been in active development now for about ten months, and it's almost ready for a beta test. 

StationBase was developed from the outset to encourage sharing of records. A default operator is assigned, so that visitors will see that operator's records before they login. (Users can designate their records as private, visible only to them; but where's the fun in that?)

For each operator, StationBase keeps track of lists of Locations, Equipment Sets (collections of equipment often used together), Equipment, and a common pool of Network definitions.  These are attached to Station records, through Reception Reports. If geographic coordinates are supplied for both a Location and a Station, the distance will then automatically be calculated when a reception report is filed. StationBase also has a logging feature, and can automatically generate reception reports when it finds you logging an identified station, or even creating a station record if it doesn't already exist. It can also do the same when you enter Reception Reports directly, converting them into log entries.

In the main screen, you can filter your stations by whether they are still active; by Location, and by Equipment Set. You can combine these filters so that, for example, you can view only those active stations bagged in Rockland, using the Original set of equipment.

For the Online Edition, there are some extra niceties:

• An online news feature; you can post news items, which can be viewed by other users, with custom expiry dates;
• An online bug-reporting/tracking feature, which should be very handy during the beta-test period;
• An email function (planned for the next major release);
• The ability to view anybody's records who has not marked them private.

There are also a Stats section, which shows you statistical data about your catches, and a Data section, divided into three parts: Export, Import, and Deletion. Data export of any part of your records can occur in any of three different file formats (text, CSV, and XML). Anything that the program can export, it can also import, guaranteeing protection for your valuable records.

For the past week, I've also been developing a Desktop Edition of StationBase. This version will compile and run on just about any platform and is completely self-contained. It doesn't require a database server, a web server, or anything else. It will also feature full data interchangeability with the Online Edition. A typical scenario I've envisioned points out the usefulness of this ability. You could use the Desktop Edition of StationBase to maintain your records; but when you're DX'ing, you probably don't want your primary computer running (a major source of radio noise). So, you operate with a tablet, and access the online version of the program while DX'ing, probably from a mobile device like a smartphone or a tablet. When you're done, you export your data from the Online Edition, feed it into the Desktop Edition--and you're up-to-date.

Here's a peek at the landing screen (logged out), so you can get some sense of what I'm talking about.

Both the Online and Desktop Editions will be available later this autumn. My thought was that groups of like-minded DX'ers could run a version of the Online Edition (it does require a Java application server); and anyone can run the Desktop Edition.

Both projects have been leveraged as educational opportunities. For the Online Edition, I've programmed a custom data-grids package in JavaScript, and developed it in the Eclipse IDE, using Java Spring MVC, and for the Desktop Edition (programmed in Free Pascal and the Lazarus IDE), I've programmed custom database routines and a simple indexing package that brought me up-to-date on directly handling raw data.

Anyway, here's that screenshot:

In Defence of Atheists

There's an article in the National Post this morning, about atheism, that's really raised my ire.

I'm not going to comment on it, quote from it, or argue with it. It would be seen as intolerant--and religions in Canada are protected from intolerance.

When, may I ask, will atheists be afforded the same protection? If you were to attack Christianity in the papers, all Hell would break loose.

But atheists? Fair game, as usual.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

CHUMP
2018-05-22

It never fails. Something happens, and I'm left feeling like a chump.

Months ago, our landlord announced that our balconies would be rebuilt this year. Weeks ago, they fixed a date: May 22. We were warned through multiple printed notices to clear off our balconies, clear out our backyards, etc. They also warned that people would be in on May 22 to change our back door and balcony door locks.

Of course, I, like a good little conformist, cleared off most of our balcony weeks ago. This morning, I cleared the last few items; it took five minutes. A gentleman came around this morning and changed our balcony lock (to ensure we wouldn't open the door and plunge a whole storey to our deaths).

Now, as I look at the other balconies and backyards in our development, I find that we were the only ones to be ready. Backyards are still cluttered with possessions; satellite dishes remain mounted on the balconies, along with chairs, tables, etc.

I don't know what these people are going to do now--presumably crawl out their windows to fetch in their stuff; but I can bet what's going to happen.

Nothing will be done until the stuff has been removed. And residents will continue to ignore warnings and notices to remove their stuff. Finally (about a month from now), the landlord will get fed up and try to remove the items. And a great cry will go up--you didn't warn us; you didn't say anything about satellite dishes; it's our God-given right to watch TV; we're going to sue; and so on. And so the landlord will gently remove the sat dishes are re-install them on the side of the building. They'll demo the balconies--very slowly, carefully, so as not to interfere with people's God-given rights--rebuild them, and carefully mount the sat dishes again, so that they can replace the siding on the building. They say the whole thing will take ten weeks, but going by last year's construction jobs on neighbouring blocks of units (they still haven't finished with the eaves), we'll finally get to enjoy our new balconies in September--just in time for autumn.

It frankly pisses me off to do the right thing and then see that others, who just don't give two shakes about anything beyond the tips of their noses, don't--and without consequences. I know, I know; mind your own business; say nothing; be tolerant and understanding. But, fuck, it's difficult to do so in this day and age, when everybody feels untouchable and free to do as they please. According to the landlord's own rules, satellite dishes aren't even permitted in this development--but I can stick my head out the window and count four, just in our block.

What I'd love to see: the contractors coming in tomorrow and demoing the whole kit-and-kaboodle. Toss the sat dishes and fittings and tables and barbecues into the dumpster along with all the other trash. Get on with the rebuild. But we all know that won't happen. People have rights, after all.

So, I done right, and I'm a chump.

Fuck, I hate people, in the collective sense.

A Simple Argument Against Dark Matter

Dark Matter. Not the TV series. The astrophysical stuff; the stuff astronomers believe makes up some 28% of our universe. I think it's bunk. I can think of at least two good reasons why.

First off, Dark Matter was hypothesized to explain the rotation periods of stars in the outer fringes of galactic disks; the stars seemed to be moving faster than could be accounted for by the combined gravitational pull of all the rest of the visible matter in a galaxy. So, posited the astronomers, there must be a much larger mass--of invisible matter--making those stars orbit so quickly.

Over the years, the idea caught on as a way of explaining away various inconsistencies. It was so damned easy just to blame the Dark Matter. Also, over the years, dark matter 'evolved'. It was dark because it emitted no electromagnetic energy (radio, microwaves, heat, light, ultraviolet, X rays). It interacted with normal matter only through gravity (and apparently obeying the same rules with itself, too, for all those computer simulations showed the Dark Matter lagging behind the normal-matter's movements, like a comet's tail).

Recently, one team of astronomers restudied the galactic orbital speeds problem, and came to the conclusion that one did not need to invoke Dark Matter to explain the orbital velocities of the outer stars. Then another team restudied the expanding-universe problem, and discovered that, if you looked at space a certain way, you didn't even need to invoke Dark Energy--a whole separate kettle of fish.

I have a simpler, but I believe well-thought-out, argument.

If we assume that Dark Matter is actually more abundant than normal matter, and at least as mobile as normal matter (in fact, more so), then it would be reasonable to postulate that some of it would be tagging along with, for example, the earth and the sun. But that introduces problems.

Scientists have 'weighed' both the earth and the sun, and from that they can calculate the amount of gravitational force they exert. Presumably, theory matches observation. Let that be our starting point.

Now, if dark matter's gravitation is but a component of that whole, then it means we're no further ahead for having it--but dark matter was brought in precisely because scientists thought its extra gravity was needed. Worse, it really messes up some of the natural constants (especially G--Newton's Constant) that we rely on to make astronomical calculations, operate GPS networks, etc.

Carrying on with our assumption, then, we must further assume that there is no Dark Matter accompanying the Earth or the Sun (or we'd feel it; or our orbit wouldn't make sense). But is that a reasonable supposition, given what we believe we know about Dark Matter (i.e. quite mobile, can't attach itself to normal matter)? I don't think that it is. Why would the solar neighbourhood be Dark-Matter-free? Surely this can't last--eventually some Dark Matter has to catch up with us, and then our goose will be cooked.

Finally, scientists have been searching for Dark Matter for years, believing that every once in a while, a piece will collide with a piece of normal matter. Watching for years. Haven't seen a damned thing in all that time.

For me, case closed.

Now, I'm not a professional astronomer, but I have been keen on the subject for nearly fifty years (I'm 53 now and remember the Apollo 8 flight around the moon, in 1968). I've read every accessible article on it, thousands of pages of National Geographic articles, textbooks, and scientific journals (and it takes a lot to lose me). I've spent thousands of hours squinting through a succession of telescopes. I have the physical parameters of all the planets memorized--have since before I knew what a "sidereal period" was. I've probably forgotten more stuff about astronomy than most people will ever know. 

In short: I know a little something whereof I speak.

Have a good one,

-Bill

Sears Canada Epic Fail

[Full disclosure: neither I, nor any of my family members or friends, work at Sears Canada. Thank small mercies for that one!]

Okay, today I'm really pissed.

Sears Canada recently filed for bankruptcy protection. Among the items approved by the courts--items for which Sears asked--were big, fat bonuses for their executives--and screwing their line workers out of hard-earned severance pay and benefits.

Now, we've all heard the experts parading around the news shows today, explaining why it's "necessary" to "retain key people" for the restructuring, and why it's "necessary" to cut off payments other than wages to their general staff, "for the survival of the company."

All I can say about that is: bullshit!

And here's why:

These "key executives" now bellying-up to the trough for a good feeding, courtesy of their thousands of subordinates, presided over Sears Canada during a time when the store went rapidly downhill. These turkeys couldn't grow their business when times were good; why should we believe it'll be any different now? In fact, allowing the situation to deteriorate to the point of bankruptcy is an arguably self-serving act, in that now they have the courts' go-ahead to take away things their 'lesser' people--who once made Sears Canada great--had already earned. Their jobs are, temporarily, safe. Hey--and they get bonuses! Party on, Wayne. Party on, Garth. Hand me a beer, and screw the little guys.

Good luck when these people start leaving--and they will. Our forebears, the Scots, had a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." They'll be leaving en masse. And they'll be just as tough to replace as "key executives"--tougher, in fact, because, having seen how Sears Canada treats its hard-working, loyal employees, who'd want to work there? I sure's hell wouldn't. I went through the no-severance-pay thing in 2012, with Newgate 180. Threw away a promising young career as a software developer and worked there nearly 25 years (1986-2012), at the end of which I walked away with... a watch. It's no fun.

As far as I'm concerned, these "key executives" were responsible for the mess in the first place. They sat on their fat asses and didn't do their jobs. They sat and presided over Sears' long fall from grace. Far from being rewarded for this, they should be fired! Everyone above the level of Store Manager should be summarily dismissed from Sears Canada--immediately, and without severance pay. Replace them with people who are willing to work for what's offered and no more; people who might have some chance to save the stillbirth that is modern-day Sears Canada.

But, that's not going to happen. So (and I suspect that the great majority of Canadians are with me on this) we have to kill off Sears. It's the kindest thing to do for all concerned. Squeeze them dry. We should have known that something like this was coming, after what they did to Eaton's. Now there's no excuse.

I will never again set foot inside a Sears Canada outlet. In my opinion, it doesn't deserve my business. Best to kill it off quickly--before their "key executives" line up like good little piggies to lap up another round of totally undeserved bonuses.

In short: if you shop at Sears Canada, you are only rewarding bad behaviour.

Pass it on.

Oops--So Much for Global Warming
(Or, Conventional Wisdom Isn't so Wise)

If I hear one more person recite the title of this essay, so help me I'll scream.

We're having a cold December here in Ottawa. I understand it's like this across much of North America. And, every time we have a cold month, the climate-change debunkers are out in full force. From little fish (e.g. conversations on the bus or in the bingo hall) to big fish (e.g. Donald Trump's frequent Twitter tantrums), you hear the same thing over and over again:

"Oops--so much for global warming!"

I'm sorry, but these idiots are so stupid, you just wanna give 'em a smack.

The fact is, cold weather these days is largely the exception that proves the rule. The naysayers have it exactly backwards--it's not that a little cool weather proves that global warming doesn't exist--it's the fact that the weather is usually warmer that proves global warming. Climate change. Whatever you want to call it, it's real.

I remember the 1980s. Particularly, I remember Decembers in the 1980s. Then, it was cold. For Pete's sake, temperatures like we've currently experiencing were more the norm back then. In fact, until just a few days ago, the temperature this cold season (I use that in lieu of "winter" as winter hasn't even started yet) hadn't gotten below -10. That would have been unheard-of in the '80s. I remember 1986, for example, when it was -10 just a few days after Hallowe'en. Yes--that's how you spell it. This year, it happened a full month later. A full month.

I remember December of 1994 or 1995, when it was so cold, residents in some neighbourhoods had to keep their taps running, lest the pipes freeze. That doesn't happen today.

For another example, look at the last time the temperature went below -30. I remember a lot of December days in the 80's where it got a lot colder than that--for days at a time. Lately? The average person will cite dozens of times, but they're talking about the wind chill index, which isn't a temperature at all; they're just too stupid to know the difference. Well, it didn't happen last year, nor the year before, and not often in the past 15 years. I have the numbers to prove that, by the way.

Look at the weather records--extremes if you like. Most of the record lows were set years ago. Most of the record highs were set recently. For today, just for an example, the record high (10.2 C) was set in 2010--six years ago. The record low (-28.9)? 1942--back in World War II. Seventy-four years, and we haven't had a colder December 17. The same sort of situation applies to hundreds of days in the year, nowadays. Hundreds.

Look at the average temperature. It's rising. 2016 is on track to be the hottest year globally, ever, eclipsing--guess when?--2015. The deniers point to an apparent hiatus in climate change in the early aughts, claiming triumphantly that it was all a hoax and that they knew it all along. Well, guess what--scientists have determined that the warming was occurring then, too; but the heat was being pulled into the oceans for a time. And, guess what? The atmosphere is back to warming up. Very little has changed except for the rising level of pollutants in our atmosphere. The sun isn't the cause--scientists have been monitoring that for years, and the solar output has been steady as a rock.

The basic problem is that people don't remember and don't think for themselves. They notice the extremes and completely dismiss the normal. In this part of the country, cold stands out much more than hot; and so we notice the cold days, completely ignore the ever-climbing norms, and only barely notice the hot days. After all, "It's summer--it's supposed to be hot!" For some reason, it doesn't occur to them that winter is supposed to be cold--precisely because the last 20-or-so winters have been warmer than normal.

There's a bit of a war on science going on lately. We saw it first-hand in Canada, during the Harper years, when scientists were muzzled, prevented from speaking their minds and sharing their observations. Now it's happening in the United States. My theory is that people don't trust science, because they don't understand it, don't trust scientists because scientists are smarter and know more than they do. At what point did that become a fault?

How many times has someone you know said, "the scientists don't know what they're talking about." Well, heads-up, dummy--they do. They don't rely on fallible memories of how it used to be--they deal with solid numbers. Unlike most people, they look at all the data--going back years--before they shoot off their mouths. They apply mathematical tests, do comparative analyses, adjust for known climate perturbations (el nino, la nina, volcanic eruptions, etc.). Just because it's a slightly complicated process doesn't mean it's wrong. What's wrong is scanning your feeble memory for five seconds before pronouncing on the state of the climate. In other words: your ignorance does not prove the converse of what scientists are saying.

I have the numbers to prove that this December was above normal in temperature for the first half--and those are recent normals, allowing for climate change. And, even with that, the values were still warmer than usual. I'll bet you any money that people in January take all of three seconds to think about it and will look back on December as a cold month--all of it. One of the coldest, in fact.

Climate-change deniers remind me of Nero, singing and plucking at his lyre while Rome burned around him.

So, the next time you're tempted to utter the phrase that makes my blood boil, take a few minutes to think about it. Really think. Remember the weather back in your childhood. Does the current weather measure up? Barely--it would have been considered normal, back in the years before climate change really got going.

So, buck up. Yeah, it's a little cold right now. But I'll tell you this: if you're 25 years of age, or older, it got a hell of a lot colder when you were a little kid. That's based on hard fact. And you can take that to the proverbial bank!

Fifteen Years! Story of a Cancer Survivor

On the night of September 10, 2001 (note the date), I found a lump on my right testicle. An ultrasound examination confirmed there was something there, and a visit to the urologist confirmed it was cancer.

You can imagine how I felt on September 11, watching those people falling from the twin towers and, in a way, envying them.

They operated on October 19. The news at first was not good; it was a particularly aggressive form of cancer, and I'd likely have to go through chemotherapy and radiation treatments. I was on a waiting list to see an oncologist.

Remarkably, just before Christmas, I had some bloodwork done, and the indications were that my tumour markers were close to zero. In consultation with the oncologist, I decided to wait it out and see.

That was fifteen years ago. I've been cancer-free ever since. I was essentially pronounced cured at the five-year mark.

Now, if I could just get rid of the phantom right testicle that still aches once in a while.