Bob,
SO2R is about a human being developing the skills to decode two audio
streams. One in each ear. It is hard to learn and if done incorrectly will
actually reduce your score. This is proven fact and not an opinion.
Skimmer can simultaneously decode dozens and perhaps hundreds of streams
outside the range of human hearing and over a 96 khz swath of spectrum. I
suspect Alex is working on parallelizing this further and perfecting this
technology. He is a very capable guy and there is no doubt in my mind that he
will succeed.
For those of us who view contesting as a sport, this understanding is the heart
and soul of the debate.
73 - Guy, N7ZG
> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:41:49 -0500> From: bob@reconstructinghistory.com>
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer musings> >
> On Apr 27 00:33, Guy Molinari <guy_molinari@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > I
> suspect you haven't read the e-mails. I think the debate has been > > rather
> thoughtful and healthy for the sport. If I didn't, I would probably> > opt
> out of the mailing list. A choice open to all of us.> > I have contemplated
> opting out of the list, because while this debate at least has been (mostly)
> respectful, it has seldom been thoughtful and quite often so pedantic as to
> be little more than an exercise in mental masturbation.> > "My opinion is
> this, stated without any evidence of thought deeper than 'No sir; I don't
> like it.'"> > "Oh, yeah? Well, you're wrong, because my equally unsupported
> opinion is different."> > Yes, there are the odd posts where the poster will
> actually explore his opinion, display the reasoning behind his stance. But
> the majority act as if the reasons are self-evident why his opinion is the
> only possible solution. And there are seemingly 702,347 of those posts
> weekly. It gets to be a bit much to endure. ;-)> > If ever there was a time
> when I wanted to opt out of this list, it was the recent and resurging
> cheating threads. Talk about saying everything and signifying nothing - lots
> and lots of pointless, repetitive bitching, though.> > Anyhow, moving on.> >
> > > aid: To help or furnish with help, support, or relief. n.> 1. The act or
> result of helping; assistance.> 2. An assistant or helper.> 3. A device that
> assists.> > as·sist:> verb (used with object)> 1. to give support or aid to;
> help: Please assist him in moving the > furniture.> 2. to be associated with
> as an assistant or helper.> –verb (used without object)> > > And this
> statement isn't pedantic?> > Not really. It's cut-and-paste from
> Dictionary.com. ;-)> > Seriously, I found it necessary to define the term in
> order to successfully frame the rest of my position. This list seems to enjoy
> counting the angels dancing, so I thought it useful to define the size of the
> pin-head. ;-)> > > It really depends upon your definition of the radio art.
> Some define this as> > technology as an end in itself. Others view this as a
> sport where operator> > skill development is paramount. The consensus seems
> to be that allowing> > skimmer in the unassisted category does not advance
> the art and sport of > > radio. Why, because the technology is not about
> automating a process > > that a single op cannot do. Namely, copy signals
> outside of the receiver> > passband. There has been a debate about SO2R as
> well. This IMHO is> > a technological advancement that advances the radio
> art. Why? Because> > it raises the bar in terms of operating skill. There is
> no double standard here.> > While I think I understand what you're saying, I
> don't understand why you think one raises the bar while the other doesn't. >
> > You said: "the technology is not about automating a process that a single
> op cannot do." What about SO2R is about automating processes a single op
> can't do? Seems to me much of SO2R technology is automating processes a
> single op could do manually, but chooses not to - like bandswitching,
> logging, etc. Hell, you don't even have to raise a finger to flip switches if
> you don't want to; buy the right gear, and with one mouseclick your bandpass
> filter will automatically switch to the new new band, the computer will read
> the exact frequency from the radio, the amplifier will tune itself, and the
> rotator will aim the beam where the prefix you just entered into the log says
> it should.> > This is supposed to raise the bar of operating skill? [rolls
> eyes] > > I just don't see the difference.> > > If you take this at face
> value, you will see that this is not about fear. No > > one is suggesting a
> ban of skimmer. Just that it be placed in the > > appropriate category per
> the essence and spirit of the definition of assistance> > as currently
> written. > > This I understand. I guess I simply disagree that Skimmer is
> Assisted; I don't think it's any different than any other bit of equipment in
> a well-equipped contester's shack.> > > I like the technology quite frankly.
> I believe that a skimmer network will > > increase the number of QSO's
> overall due to the fact that EVERYONE will be> > spotted (cheerleading
> becomes irrelevant). 73 - Guy, N7ZG> > Cool! I hadn't thought of it in that
> way.> > Cheers,> > Bob NQ3X> > --> No cute furry animals were harmed in
> preparing and sending this email. Countless electrons, however, were terribly
> inconvenienced.
_________________________________________________________________
Spell a grand slam in this game where word skill meets World Series. Get in the
game.
http://club.live.com/word_slugger.aspx?icid=word_slugger_wlhm_admod_april08
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|