On Apr 30, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Julius Fazekas wrote:
>
>> As for an outright ban, I liken the technology gap
>> to a related
>> matter of the Pennsylvania Amish (stick with me here
>> a minute)
>>
>> In say 1845, the Amish were not a whole lot
>> different technology wise
>> than the "English" as they referred to other folks
>> here in PA. As
>> years went by, as the rest of us adopted more and
>> more technology,
>> the gap widened, until today, those who practice the
>> traditional form
>> are completely estranged from the rest of us,
>> technology wise.
>>
>> side note: Many Amish folk here in PA have adopted
>> some modern
>> technology, some times in unusual ways so as not to
>> violate their
>> beliefs - but that is a different issue.
>
> Mike, again, I don't see anyone calling for a ban on
> the technology, just the appropriate place for it.
There was a post here calling for a ban on it, forget who it was tho'.
> Too, assisted should not be looked down upon as a
> category. It's not inferior, it's just a different
> approach to the sport.
Agreed. In fact as a person who enjoys the bells and whistles of
computers, as well as the knobs on my radio, I would be happy to
adopt whatever technology comes along. It isn't inferior to an
"unassisted class.
> As to the Amish analogy, they are a thriving group of
> communities without the technological sea to wade
> through.
There are some issues though. I don't want to get too much into that
on this sig, but there are some up and coming problems for them
common to all those small groups that separate themselves from the
rest of the world.
> I would ask, what would you rather have: a
> piece of Amish Furniture or the latest pressboard
> stuff sold at Walmart?
Of course I'd like the Amish furniture in this instance, but then
what I'd really like is the nicest furniture I could get regardless
of who manufactured it. 8^)
But perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The technology that the amish
possessed in 1845 was vastly superior to that of say the 1200's. When
they decided to set themselves apart, they continued with the
technology they had, and to not allow anything "newer" unless it was
approved by a religious leader.
The analogy to an unassisted class is that at some point, freezing of
the technology, or even the addition of technology that was once not
considered assistance to the forbidden list, will eventually set
these unassisted folks quite far apart from the rest of the Amateur
world.
Even just a bandscope or waterfall running will give me a place to
tune to with a click of the mouse. Then assuming that the Ops are at
all efficient, I'll know in a few seconds the callsign, and I'll have
it more accurately than the skimmer can do it just by listening for
those few seconds. work the station, and be done. That bandscope or
waterfall was of great assistance to me. What's more, it can be used
for SSB also.
So it really isn't a black and white issue, as some would have it. So
many unintended consequences pop up.
For myself, I am of the opinion that assistance comes from outside -
the amateur gets their information from somewhere else beside their
operating station. That means that spotting net, some buddy checking
out the band on a radio not being operated by the contester - things
like that. Others will differ of course, the output of the skimmer is
uncomfortably close to a spotting net. And that is what we have to
hash out. Certainly a networked skimmer that takes spots from
multiple sources aside from yours is assistance. That last example is
just a morph of packet spotting.
>
>
>> rare one. I think that the human running the station
>> is sacrosanct,
>> and I doubt that anyone wants to make such a
>> human-less station.
>
>
> I'll take that bet. What odds are you giving? ;o)
>
Well, I'm not betting, but robots exist already. All it takes is some
Digital handshaking, and the QSO is made. It would be pretty silly to
contest that way though. It would be even sillier to try to "robot
contest" using CW - it isn't terribly efficient in the conversion to
digital. Now all that being said, there are plenty of silly people in
the world, so I would have to qualify the statement.
-73 de Mike N3LI -
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|