This whole thread is getting quite rediculous. Let's move on to something
more productive. How's that for a novel idea?
Dick
W0RAA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy Taylor" <ve4xt@mts.net>
To: "'Joe Subich, W4TV'" <w4tv@subich.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> Hi Joe,
> So if Garry Kasparov is playing a chess match and has a feed from Deep
> Blue
> in his ear, offering analyses of various moves and suggestions of his next
> move, his opponent should just accept that Deep Blue is the latest in
> chess
> technology? After all, Deep Blue isn't doing anything that Kasparov
> couldn't
> do. Deep Blue doesn't break any new ground, it just does what Kasparov can
> do hundreds of times more efficiently.
>
> If Phil Mickelson started using a range-finder, Tiger Woods and the PGA
> should just accept that it's the latest in golf technology? Range-finders
> have been around for years. They break no new ground.
>
> If the Russian bobsled team developed rocket boosters for their sleds,
> Team
> USA should just shut up and accept that it's the latest in bobsledding
> technology? Rockets have been around for decades. They don't do anything
> that the team's own legs couldn't do, they just do it more efficiently.
>
> If I show up at the KCDX Club suite with a computer and an AF version of
> Skimmer, the rest of the pileup contestants should just accept that I'm
> using the latest in CW technology that they were too dumb to bring
> themselves? Puhleese!
>
> I'm not a big fan of calling those with code readers unassisted, however,
> at
> least with a code reader, the operator still has to copy the output of the
> code reader himself at great disadvantage compared with operators who can
> copy by ear.
>
> Look, I'm not of the ban-Skimmer crowd. I just think that anything that
> looks like packet, smells like packet and quacks like packet should be
> called assisted. I fail to see how that is in any way anti-technology any
> more than saying those with packet should be called assisted or saying
> those
> running 1kw should be in a different class than those running 100w or
> saying
> those with 10 operators and transmitters on all bands should be in a
> different category than those with one operator.
>
> If the Olympics created a category for rocket-powered bobsleigh, I'd
> accept
> it. But I don't think those with rockets should compete on the same terms
> as
> those without. To say otherwise is to have the other teams walk away and
> let
> the sport die.
>
> If I advanced the concept of Skimmer to the point where I just walk into
> the
> shack, press Start and go golfing for the weekend, could I claim that I
> won
> SS?
>
> After all, my computer isn't doing anything that I couldn't do. It's just
> doing it more efficiently.
>
>
> 73, Kelly
> Ve4xt
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Subich, W4TV [mailto:w4tv@subich.com]
> Sent: April-25-08 12:15 AM
> To: 'Sandy Taylor'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>
>
>
>> C'mon Joe, it's completely ludicrous to say Skimmer breaks no
>> new ground. Since when has there been anything, other than
>> packet, that tells you who is on and where they are.
>
> The only thing Skimmer does is present the data in a different
> format. It's certainly not the first CW decoder - they've been
> around for 15 maybe 20 years. It's certainly not the first
> panadapter - they've been around for 40? years. It's certainly
> not the first broadband receiver - they've been around for 80
> years. However, skimmer combines those elements along with a
> little thought and a lot of programmer ingenuity to present
> the information in a very usable format.
>
> Skimmer doesn't do anything that the operator can't do (the
> operator can scan the band and copy every signal he encounters)
> but skimmer does it faster and more efficiently but with less
> accuracy. Putting a skimmer on the 2nd radio simply makes
> that radio more efficient. It's the CW equivalent to some of
> the multiple channel PSK software - for example the "broadband
> decode" feature of WinWarbler that will even fill a local
> bandmap during a PSK contest (what few there are).
>
> Skimmer breaks no new ground ... of that there is no doubt if
> you bother to pay attention to technology. Slimmer simply
> applies existing technology in a new area. The existence of
> WinWarbler's "broadband decode" feature for nearly two years
> has shown what is possible. CW Skimmer has applied that to
> CW and I don't think it will be that soon before another clever
> programmer does the same with traditional RTTY. Phone will
> take a little longer because analog voice is just a bit more
> complicated to decode than any of the digital (including CW)
> signals but it will happen at the amateur level - I'm sure it
> is already happening on the government/professional level.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sandy Taylor [mailto:ve4xt@mts.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:10 PM
>> To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; k-zero-hb@earthlink.net;
>> cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>>
>>
>> C'mon Joe, it's completely ludicrous to say Skimmer breaks no
>> new ground. Since when has there been anything, other than
>> packet, that tells you who is on and where they are.
>>
>> All the other examples you cite still require the operator to
>> have done SOMETHING. Skimmer doesn't.
>>
>> I can only guess you're saying such preposterous things to
>> stir the pot a bit. I can't imagine you're being the least
>> bit serious.
>>
>> 73, Kelly
>> Ve4xt
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
>> Subich, W4TV
>> Sent: April-24-08 7:24 PM
>> To: k-zero-hb@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>>
>>
>>
>> > Memory keyers and logging programs (book-keepers) do
>> > not search out and identify stations for you to work
>> > which are outside your audio passband.
>>
>> CW Skimmer is a new application of existing technology (CW decoders,
>> broadband receivers, panadapters, additional receiver, etc.) that
>> allows an operator to be more productive IN ANOTHER AREA of the
>> contest art. Other than the manner of presentation it breaks no
>> new ground.
>>
>> A local Skimmer is to CW Decoders and SOnR as computer logging
>> is to the paper logs and dupe sheet. It breaks no new ground
>> in function ... only in form.
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: K0HB [mailto:k-zero-hb@earthlink.net]
>> > Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:19 PM
>> > To: W4TV Joe Subich; w5ov@w5ov.com; cq-contest@contesting.com
>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Skimmer is no more "assistance" than a memory keyer or computer
>> > > logging.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Of course it is, Joe. Memory keyers and logging programs
>> > (book-keepers) do
>> > not search out and identify stations for you to work which
>> > are outside your
>> > audio passband.
>> >
>> > 73, de Hans, K0HB
>> > Just a boy and his radio
>> > --
>> > ><{{{{*> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0h
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|