[CQ-Contest] Comments on CQWW Rules

[Mike Reublin]

Who gets the credit for the win? I vote for the programmer.

73, Mike NF4L

On Jul 22, 2014, at 2:02 AM, <somata90924 at mypacks.net> <somata90924 at mypacks.net> wrote:

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