[CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap

[vk4ti at yahoo.com]

PROGRESSIVE . . . with knowledge abreast of science, well-built and efficient station and operation above reproach. - radio amateurs code from 1928..
Without CW decoders over 50% of the cannon fodder that makes up contest QSO's would not exist and without mandatory CW testing that number will rise..
We are having an ongoing clash between what is "historic" and ethical under todays technology..
You will notice that the majority of the Asian contests allow Skimmer , spotting etc etc - are we in danger of becoming a relic of the past - clutching on to what was once great...?? 
I applaud K3LR's use of Skimmer technology in the server format and the great work by Pete Smith with the Reverse Beacon Network- what I am disappointed by is that Skimmer is the forefront and searching the internet there are NO challengers to it and the technology of Skimmer is 5 years old now..and we are still having problems with it...SKIMMER WILL WORK WITH WINDOWS 98 !!!  Writelog's CW decoder would have to be ten years old -works pretty good actually but again no upgrades - 
My software ability is not good enough to progress it further but I really believe great CW decoders will keep CW on the bands when we are all pushing up daisies..
Trent VK4TI 





--- On Tue, 26/10/10, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:

From: Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Received: Tuesday, 26 October, 2010, 7:05 AM



On 25/10/2010 01:18, Jack Haverty wrote:

 > I think the only reason CW decoders work so well is because today most
 > code, especially in contests, is machine-sent,

Whether CW decoders work well or otherwise is irrelevant - the
issue is whether they are used.


 > So, if you want to outlaw CW decoders, I think that rule should be
 > symmetrical and outlaw CW encoders as well.

This argument has been refuted many times.

The key to human communications is understanding.  If I
don't know Russian, I can communicate with someone who
does by using an interpreter.  However, due to the fact
that I don't understand Russian, I can not claim to have
had a Russian conversation.

If I don't know CW, I can communicate with somone who
does by using a machine or software.  However, due to
the fact that I don't understand CW, I can not claim
to have had a CW QSO.

The use of decoders reduces CW to the status of "just
another data mode" simply because the fundamental
difference between CW and other data modes is that
CW can be understood by ear in real-time.


 > E.G., the N1MM logger, by quickly identifying stations, as you type
 > their callsign, which you've already worked, or which are unworked
 > multipliers, arguably helps to "find or facilitate contest QSOs",

Here is what I said -

   "The tools should not involve any use, during the contest,
   of non-amateur-radio communications modes or technologies,
   with the potential for, or for the purpose of, finding or
   facilatating contest QSOs."

A contest logger is neither a communications mode nor
a communications technology - except, of course, when
it is linked to the internet.

73,
Paul EI5DI




_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest