[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

[somata90924 at mypacks.net]

Why dont we have a contest completely run by software?

cool huh? Next we could have a entry for ROBOTS okey?  

'''''What Hath God Wroght?'''''

Joe w6vnr

-----Original Message-----
>From: Tom Osborne <w7why at frontier.com>
>Sent: Jun 24, 2014 5:59 PM
>To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules
>
>How about letting the software figure it out.
>
>Enter all your information, antenna, power, HFTA info, etc, into the 
>logging program and then have it all interfaced with some propagation 
>software.
>
>You could then click on a skimmer spot, the computer would compute the 
>probability that you could work this station, and if it is higher, than 
>say, 80 percent probable you could, just go ahead and log it and look 
>for another skimmer spot.
>
>Sure would save a lot of frustration having to actually listen to 
>stations to have to figure what their call is and wait for them to ID.  73
>
>Tom W7WHY
>
>
>On 6/24/2014 9:55 AM, Barry wrote:
>> I propose the term S & P be updated to our modern world.  It's time to 
>> call it C & P  (click and pounce).  Does anyone really Search any more?
>>
>> Barry W2UP
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest