"AaronJ" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
I personally ignore computer CW...

I personally ignore any electronically assisted CW.
I don't see much difference between an electronic
keyer and a PC.

Ignoring someone because of how their CW is generated is just as
prejudiced as
ignoring someone because they didn't have to pass a code test...

Interesting logical leap. If one chooses not to use a certain technology
(i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for
ignoring people who use the technology that he chooses not to use?

If I ignore AM radio, does that mean that I am prejudiced against you
because you like AM radio?

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
If I ignore AM radio, does that mean that I am prejudiced against you
because you like AM radio?

What's wrong with being prejudiced? It saves me
from making the same mistake over and over again.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Stefan Wolfe wrote:
...
Interesting logical leap. If one chooses not to use a certain technology
(i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for
...

First you would have to convince me you are psychic; as, that is the
ONLY way you can differentiate between computer-generated CW and
non-computer-generated ...

Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the
computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique
signature" of the "imitated keyers style."

JS

John Smith I wrote:
First you would have to convince me you are psychic; as, that is the
ONLY way you can differentiate between computer-generated CW and
non-computer-generated ...

Straight keys are relatively easy to recognize.
Sometimes it is impossible to program a machine
to be that bad on purpose. :-) I heard a guy on
straight key night where his dits were 75% the
length of his dahs - amazingly hard to copy.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

"Stefan Wolfe" wrote:

If one chooses not to use a certain technology
(i.e. ignores computer CW), can he then be accused of radio prejudice for
ignoring people who use the technology that he chooses not to use?

I was simply referring to those who refuse to work someone on CW *only* because
they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they
suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and
poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me.

If I ignore AM radio, does that mean that I am prejudiced against you
because you like AM radio?

Well now I guess I'm guilty of that since I haven't used a mike in over 20
years...

Cecil Moore wrote:

That's the point I was trying to make.

My apologies, I thought you were serious.

Cecil Moore wrote:

Straight keys are relatively easy to recognize.
Sometimes it is impossible to program a machine
to be that bad on purpose. :-) I heard a guy on
straight key night where his dits were 75% the
length of his dahs - amazingly hard to copy.

Cecil:

You find me a hacker (i.e. "Professional Software Engineer") who says
that would be even above childs play and I will give up my anonymity.

On a complexity scale of 1-to-10 that does NOT even register ...

Regards,
JS

wrote:

Kind of like sending Morse Code so poorly that a Technician with a
computer reader couldn't copy it.

I been trying to find a Tech or Novice to work on CW since they were allowed on
my bands. So far nil. I had hopes that the change might help repopulate the CW
bands somewhat. Maybe not...

Aaron J, keeper of the Morse Myths, welcome back.

Thanks, I think...

John Smith I wrote:

Minor, inconsequential and random errors are easily programmed into the
computer generated model, but will give the morse that "unique
signature" of the "imitated keyers style."

IMO the perfect fist sounds like computer generated CW. And it's the easiest to
copy. All those so called 'unique fists' can be copied but it's like trying to
understand someone from Brooklyn (or Texas)...

AaronJ wrote:
...
they are using a computer. I've even read posts here of hams that said if they
suspect someone is copying CW by computer they switch to excessive weight and
poor sending just to mess up the copy. Seems kind of snobbish to me.
...

AaronJ:

They (those guys with the brass taps on, doing a tap dance here) truly
show their ignorance if that is their claim. They get away with that
chit because few have professional programming experience here, indeed,
2nd or 3rd year software engineering students would even be able to
"pull their covers."

If the ear can tell the difference between a di and a dah, the computer
sure as heck will not be fooled!

This would only require that polymorphic coding be used in the software
(self-adapting to such changes which can be deduced and "programmed
for") and adaptive timing (comparing lengths of key-ons (di to dah) and
constantly adapting for changes--only caring for the fact that a di is
consistently shorter than a dah.)

While this might be an interesting enough project for a 2nd to 3rd year
college student, most upper division students would be required to have
skills capable of solving much more complex problems involving
algorithms with magnitudes of greater complexity!

Any software engineer who possesses a bachelors degree will support
this, even if they know NOTHING about amateur radio and ONLY that there
will ALWAYS be a difference in length between a di and a dah and these
length differences are (or may be) of a constantly variable nature.

If you doubt me, call up a college and ask to speak to a instructor in
software engineering ... don't take my word for it.

But, take this bunch of ancient key tappers as any type of
software/algorithm experts? YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME!!!

JS