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 yo
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 th
I'm sorry -- I don't parse. The CQ WW rules are written in plain English. DX alerting assistance of any kind is not permitted. It says OF ANY KIND. Thank you -- you proved my point. The computer is n
History files don't relieve the operator from COPYING the exchange. They MAY relieve the operator from TYPING the exchange if what he copies matches what the history file pre-fills for him. 73, Ed -
Scott, You have all the "words" but you are not parsing them correctly. The computer is not a person, therefore skimmer (so long as it is local) fits entirely within the single operator category sinc
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 -
Thanks, Paul, for giving me the opportunity to clarify this point. It seems obvious to me that if you are using skimmer spots that have been collected by someone else, in real time, then you are assi
Further to the same point - when the CQWW rule was written, I think we can be confident that nobody considered the arrival of Skimmer technology on the contesting scene. In the early 20th century, i
I wasn't referring to cheating during a claimed off time. Even during an "on time", Skimmer listens for me and lines up stations for me to work even if I'm not at the rig. If I were running SO2R it e
Perhaps it is time to consider the need for the Assisted category all together in respect to technology. Ham Radio, and contesting in particular, has always been a hobby focused on making the most ou
(standard SO2R) that clearly gives me "DX alerting assistance" of another kind as well. Uh, no it does not. You have to copy the callsigns of the stations on the other band. 73, Bob W5OV ____________
So Skimmer works the stations for you? I haven't used it yet. 73, Zack W9SZ _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.c
To the degree that this is true, so might a receiver; it's only necessary that the receiver output be stored. yet no one is seriously suggesting that a receiver should be disallowed. ________________
This whole thread is getting quite rediculous. Let's move on to something more productive. How's that for a novel idea? Dick W0RAA _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing l
Unless, of course, the guy using Skimmer can only copy 10 WPM and the Skimmer is showing stations sending 35 WPM that there is no way he could ever copy by ear. That is definately assistance. 73 Tom
Not a very good analogy Pete... Using this logic, straight keys, bugs, paddles would all be banned, just like horses and pedestrians from travel on the highway. 73, Julius http://lists.contesting.com
Neither is anyone suggesting that Skimmer be disallowed. The suggestion is that single ops should not have to compete with skimmer-equipped stations. 73, de Hans, K0HB Just a boy and his radio. -- _
Now we have something to talk about.... How do you propose eliminating that next, rather easy step up from Skimmer - Robotic Automated QSO machines? It is refreshing to find that seemingly someone wh
That is not an equivalence. Such a practice would not time-shift the function of the operator ... he/she would still have to spend time listening to the stored output to make use of it. With Skimmer,
Stan, I believe many have already made a compelling case that there is no such a thing as unassisted anymore- we all use some sort of automation to achieve competitive advantage- keyers, computer log