Re-read what I said. You read the first part then went off on a rant based on that alone. I did say you should have a choice. But "Please, no, a thousand times NO!" by Hans means that he doesn't want
And I said exactly that. I want unassisted to remain, but I think that if a voice skimmer comes along it shouldn't be reflexively banned. It should be accommodated in a category that allows for that
As someone who was around for the general introduction of SSB in ham radio (can I really be THAT old?) this is nothing but more of the same. I also remember when #1 on the DXCC Honor Roll had a sing
RiaMaybe you did but before that statement you stated that "Hams are anti-technology". It seems to me you were suggesting that anyone who doesn't embrace assisted technology such as skimmer was again
ISDN used the same telephone WIRING, but different encoding. While I was at Hayes, I worked with ISDN equipment as far back as 1987. DSL equipment has moved way beyond what ISDN could do. I stand by
How do you figure, Jeff? WPX is basically a rate contest. Theres a virtually endless supply of multipliers. If you work enough contacts, the multipliers will come. Theres no need to hunt for multipl
Bill, It probably doesn't matter much if you are operating casually and using one radio. You can keep the QSO rate pretty decent. But the serious guys operating SO2R are trying to work as many statio
Author: AB1J via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 00:58:09 +0000 (UTC)
One big difference between now and the SSB paradigm shift (late 1950s well into the 1960s) is that SSB gear was expensive and not everyone could afford it. In my 1958 cohort, new hams 15-21 years ol
A lot of hams are indeed anti technology. Anything beyond "a boy and his radio" twiddling knobs is viewed as "not real ham radio." It's a pervasive attitude in some circles in ham radio. And it's aga
Wow! I dont want it to exist? Really, Ria, I didnt think that is what I meant at all. It already exists but thankfully hasnt been adopted by hams. Voice recognition technology is not some bleeding ed
If you are a competitive Single Op. entry, there is ALWAYS the need to hunt for multipliers. Strategically balancing running and mult hunting for maximum score has always been a great challenge of Si
Not anti-technology but anti-internet use in contests I guess. Otherwise no radio is necessary, use Hemsphere. 73 Peter --Original Message-- From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+dj7ww=t-online
I liken the RBN to a broker between buyers and sellers. The broker finds buyers (S&P'ers) for the sellers (CQ'ers). The efficiency of the market is drastically improved for both. CQ'ers are happy
Great post, Dave. 73, Jim K9YC _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
But only if the radio doesn't have DSP, a built in keyer, a built in voice keyer, a synthesizer, dual VFOs. Maybe it should be rockbound. I miss my HW-16. 73 John AF5CC ______________________________
See you, and raise you 10 watts and grid modulation (Globe Scout, 1956 or thereabouts). Now there was a deterrent to phone contesting. 73, Pete N4ZR Check out the new Reverse Beacon Network web serv
Given that there's going to be many people with the same idea in mind, I question that you can depend on 'knocking off stations instantly'. You may very well click on the band map and find you're fig
No experience on Siri, per se, but based on how often I have to repeat things to the Google Assistant, I'm not sure if I'd want to depend on even modern commercial voice recognition for voice skimmer
Speech recognition isn't new but the improvements to how it is processed are improving daily. Things like accents and natural language processing are getting us closer to computers understanding casu
Amazons Alexa is quite good. She understands statements made in a variety of ways. She differentiates voices well between my wife and me. She does make some silly mistakes, but it is usually because