At 01:40 PM 7/18/2003 -0500, Tree wrote:
>You have my sympathy Warren - it doesn't "feel" like the right thing to do.
Tree, you've hit the nail perfectly and sent it home with one shot! It's
sort of like our discussion about skeds made before the contest, I now
agree with you, they don't "feel" right either.
>However, technically, since this is simplex operation, it isn't against the
>rules - and the point that a machine is doing the receiving would be equally
>valid if the mode was CW - which isn't against contest rules.
Yes, but what's to stop me from designing a CU2QSO version of the "TACO"
(Totally Automated Computer Operator) that someone used for HF CW
contesting, and having it complete the QSO. That "TACO" design would be
easier then the CW version.
>I think the main reason that this doesn't feel right to many of us is that
>it removes the operator from much of the QSO process and starts to feel too
>much like packet. Since packet spotting is an evil thing, then this starts
>to feel like an evil thing as well.
I agree it's TOO automated! If you design a "TACO" program it's
COMPLETELY automated and that's CHEATING! How do you PROVE that?
>I think as we move too much towards technology like this, the "fun" aspect
>for many of us will diminish. It removes operator skill somewhat and gives
>you a piece of technology that allows you to be less efficient as an
>operator and still work "lots" of multipliers.
Agree 100% You could equate this as being similar to SO2R but with NONE
of the REQUIRED SKILL! At least with SO2R you are interacting with both
radios!
>I guess we will see if this technique gains critical mass or not. It might
>in some parts of the country, but at least I don't think it will out here
>in the Northwest.
>
>Tree N6TR
>tree@kkn.net
I hope it doesn't gain too much critical mass here in the Northeast!
73
Warren - K2BM
|