Since we're excluding emergency conditions, it would be hard to argue that
any of Asimov's laws are applicable unless you have a very broad definition
of "come to harm". QRM from a PMBO unquestionably diminishes the enjoyment
of those operators who've been QRMed, but have they truly "come to harm"?
The regulations in our various countries that prohibit amateurs from
willfully interfering with communication among other amateurs are more
germaine; one would like to believe that such regulations would be
unnecessary, but willingness -- glee, even -- of some operators to use PMBOs
when they know QSOs will be QRMed as a result makes it clear that the spirit
of amateur radio alone is not enough.
Personally, I have no interest in QSOing a station entirely operated by a
software application. However, such stations can provide useful services for
those interested.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jaak Hohensee
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 2:45 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!
Dave! You wrote, that there is nothing wrong with transmitting robots in
ham-bands - only verification of frequency.
IMO there are minimum 2 more general questions.
1. Ethics. Robot ethics. So the primary question is not verificational. Does
the transmitting robot must respect/tolerate operators or vice versa?
Isaac Asimov formulated some basic principles years ago. Now South-Korea
want to release The Robot Ethics Charter.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6425927.stm
2. If the ham community accept robots in ham bands, then in nearest future
we see programs with artificial intelligence, that make 24h QSOs from
starting to QSLing.
What you expect from QSO? Robot or operator?
Better to discuss this topic before.
HNY 2008, Jaak
ES1HJ/QRP
Dave AA6YQ wrote:
The flaw in your rhetoric, Jaak, is that Winlink PMBOs are QRMing existing
QSOs whether or not an emergency is in progress. No one has a problem with
this during an emergency -- but most of the time (thank goodness!) there is
no emergency, and we're being QRM'd for no rational reason. There is nothing
wrong with unattended stations, message passing, or using Pactor III -- but
there is a plenty wrong with failing to verify that the frequency is locally
clear before transmitting during non-emergency conditions.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
-----Original Message-----
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Jaak Hohensee
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 5:40 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Humans tolerate robots!
Dear Rodney
You are wrong. You know laws/regulations, but ham-robots dont.
Ham-robots have strong mantra - emergency. And strong mission - helping
people.
What you and other ham-humans have against this rhetoric?
Ham-humans need better rhetoric against ham-robots. Like this:
Mantra for ham-humans: Ham bands robotfree! Robots act in ham-bands like
communication terrorists.
Ham-humans mission: To developing human communication skills for any case,
not only for emergency. For emergency better widely used QRP-readiness.
73, Jaak
ES1HJ/QRP
Rodney wrote:
Tolerant of what? Intentional interference? Don't think so!
Tolerant of blatant breaking of laws and regulations? NOT!
Jaak Hohensee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
...This is supposed to be a free world but in a free world we should
always be a bit more tolerant, don't you think?
73 de Demetre SV1UY
New era beginning...
HNY 2008 from DigiQRP community.
--
Jaak Hohensee
ES1HJ/QRP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
--
Jaak Hohensee
ES1HJ/QRP
--
Kirjutas ja tervitab
Jaak Hohensee
gsm +37256 560172
