Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQ\s+WW\s+Packet\s+Use\s+Statement\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+CQ\s+WW\s+Packet\s+Use\s+Statement\s*$/: 13 ]

Total 13 documents matching your query.

1. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: btippett@alum.mit.edu (Bill Tippett); Date: Wed Jul 30 07:21:23 2003; From page 102, August 2003 CQ Magazine: "Over the last several years the CQ WW Contest Committee has developed software that allows the detection of packet use. Thanks to the cooperation of all the m; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00351.html (8,548 bytes)
2. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca (Sylvan Katz); Date: Wed Jul 30 09:20:08 2003; Could someone please explain precisely how the CQ WW software for detecting packet use works? tnx ... Sylvan Sylvan Katz, VE5ZX Saskatoon, SK http://www.dynamicforesight.com/~ve5zx; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00352.html (9,993 bytes)
3. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: jjreisert@alum.mit.edu (Jim Reisert AD1C); Date: Wed Jul 30 08:38:13 2003; Thanks for posting this, Bill. What I find most interesting is all the brou-ha-ha on this reflector about packet cheating, allowing packet in all categories etc., when in reality they only caught 12; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00355.html (8,191 bytes)
4. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: k4sb@earthlink.net (K4SB); Date: Wed Jul 30 20:07:03 2003; I am more inclined toward #3. Ed; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00356.html (7,661 bytes)
5. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: rwmcgwier@comcast.net (Robert McGwier); Date: Wed Jul 30 20:25:13 2003; You have got to be kidding right? Why would they tell you how to defeat their filter by telling you exactly how it works? Bob N4HY Could someone please explain precisely how the CQ WW software for de; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00357.html (7,549 bytes)
6. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: jskatz@sk.sympatico.ca (Sylvan Katz); Date: Thu Jul 31 08:31:53 2003; There is another possibility. The CQ WW detection technique (and perhaps any technique) is not robust and can only detect blatant cheaters. ... Sylvan I too tried to reply to Bill directly but my em; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00361.html (7,857 bytes)
7. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: k4sb@earthlink.net (K4SB); Date: Thu Jul 31 15:38:43 2003; Bob is of course, absolutely correct. However, the only constant I can think of is time. Don't know or care, but they're probably using some period of time from the packet post to the logged time. Ma; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00363.html (7,654 bytes)
8. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: rwmcgwier@comcast.net (Robert McGwier); Date: Thu Jul 31 16:34:45 2003; If they are using time between events as their only measure (surely not), then given the sample size of stations in the contest joined with the fact that a station is on the air to be spotted, the fo; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00364.html (10,717 bytes)
9. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: jmaass@columbus.rr.com (Jeff Maass); Date: Thu Jul 31 12:53:11 2003; There is a fifth as well. The CQWW detection technique (and perhaps any technique) is not accurate in detection, providing incorrect or random results. Unless the technique is open and available for; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00365.html (8,848 bytes)
10. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale L Martin); Date: Thu Jul 31 17:46:43 2003; 3. may be true and very easily can be. But they still only reach the rank of stupid in my book. 73, dale, kg5u; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-07/msg00370.html (7,964 bytes)
11. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: k4sb@earthlink.net (K4SB); Date: Fri Aug 1 16:38:15 2003; For those not familiar with the "birthday problem", I seem to remember that if 27 people are present, the odds are better than 90%. Been a long time though... And never bet against professors! Ed; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-08/msg00055.html (6,740 bytes)
12. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: jjreisert@alum.mit.edu (Jim Reisert AD1C); Date: Fri Aug 1 14:28:48 2003; Try a Google.COM search for "Birthday Problem" Now back to your regularly-scheduled log checking debate, already in progress. 73 - Jim AD1C == Jim Reisert AD1C, 7 Charlemont Court, North Chelmsford,; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-08/msg00065.html (7,007 bytes)
13. [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Packet Use Statement (score: 1): Author: n2rd@arrl.net (Rajiv Dewan, N2RD); Date: Fri Aug 1 18:28:56 2003; With r people present, the probability that no one shares a birthday is (1-1/365)(1-2/365)(1-3/365) ... (1-(r-1)/365) This works out to around 0.5 for 23 people. (assuming rates are the same for all; /archives//html/CQ-Contest/2003-08/msg00068.html (7,275 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 13
Page: [1]