R P Davis wrote:
>perhaps it threatens to make their CW skills - and by extension they
>themselves - obsolete.
Exactly in the same sense as marathon runners would feel threatend if
engine driven wheel chairs were allowed in the same category - taking
out the individual human challenge. But other than in running we have no
definition and no consensus to what extent the human part may be
replaced by tech-aids before we loose an essential part of the
competition (finding and identifying stations via human S&P vs. Skimmering).
With the majority (?????) defining it only as a tech competition there
will be no real barrier on the route to robo-contesting. The individual
skills required will be those of the engineer planning, constructing,
programming, wiring and setting up things to require as few slow human
actions as possible during the contest. Remain a few strategic decisions
about band changes, performance control of the station and the necessary
skill set to deal with information overload as long as no capable
software is available to completely select and sort all the input.
Will be interesting to see whether a "traditional" category will evolve
besides an "open" category.
And please don´t denounce me as someone wanting to have AM back and
arguments like that. You wouldn´t denounce a marathon runner in the same
way when he objects to using the wheel chair with engine as the "more
efficient way" to span the 42,5 km. With the situation being different
in both kind of competitions I´m happy that I started running again.
Thanks for reading and 73, Chris
CQ-Contest mailing list