Klystron wrote:
Phil Kane wrote:
Klystron wrote:

I take it that you don't know what "machine language" is. Humans are
not supposed to be involved. If they are, it's not machine to machine
communications.


Ham radio is supposed to be human-to-human communications, not
machine-to-machine communications.


He gave an example of Morse being used to encode transponder
identification, thus proving the continuing need for Morse. I countered
that transponder ID's are read by machines (the computers that drive
video displays), not by humans and, therefore, any machine language
would do. In fact, a REAL machine language would probably be better
suited to the task.
Please, let's not lose the context.

I missed that; what kind of transponders?

Certainly not aircraft transponders as they have no morse id.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.