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
|