[wsjt-devel] LIGO o3

[n2lo]

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20190326



Sent from Xfinity Connect Application

-Original Message-

From: n...@comcast.net
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: 2019-03-13 1:07:05 PM 
Subject: https://www.space.com/jocelyn-bell-first-pulsar-discovery-video.html


https://www.space.com/jocelyn-bell-first-pulsar-discovery-video.html

Sent from Xfinity Connect Application___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0.1 QSO ADIF transmission on the UDP port. Defect or Design?

[Bill Somerville]

On 31/03/2019 19:40, Bill Somerville wrote:

On 31/03/2019 19:17, Ed Stokes wrote:

Here’s what the dg.Data looks like for sub Clear(0)


But, alas, nothing happens with the WSJT-X application.

So, I must still be missing something!


Hi Ed,

that looks fine to me. What version is the WSJT-X you are using? The 
Clear UDP message was introduced in v2.0.1.


73
Bill
G4WJS.


Hi Ed,

sorry for the delay getting back to you.

There are actually two remaining issues, both my fault.

Firstly a minor one, you must call BinaryStream.Close after all data has 
been written. Without this the MemoryBlock instance that is being 
written to may be longer than the sum of the bytes written to the 
BinaryStream instance, this is because MemoryBlock grows in chunks for 
efficiency. BinaryStreamClose truncates the underlying MemoryBlock 
contents to exactly the bytes written. This issue does not cause the 
problem you are seeing but you should not be writing datagrams longer 
than intended since that may confuse WSJT-X.


Secondly, and more seriously, the 'id' field sent in messages to WSJT-X 
must be the same 'id' that originally came from that WSJT-X instance. 
This is a bug as the id is meant identify the sender of the message, not 
the recipient. I will update the WSJT-X application to no longer make 
this erroneous and unnecessary check. You can work around this by 
setting the id in the outgoing datagram to that received earlier from 
WSJT-X, e.g. "WSJT-X" for a default instance of WSJT-X.


In your Clear method you would replace:

outputStream.WriteUInt32 ()

with:

Dim utf8 As String = id.ConvertEncoding (Encodings.UTF8)
outputStream.WriteUInt32 (LenB (utf8))
outputStream.Write (utf8)

where 'id' is the id field extracted from a previous incoming WSJT-X 
message.


Sorry for any confusion, serves me right for not testing the code 
examples I suggested.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Neil Zampella]

There was some 'rage' Joe .. but those people were few and far between,
and after a few days they were recognized, and the callsign was passed
around as a 'bot' and ignored by many.

However, now you have someone who is modifying the code to do this and,
according to the eBay post will 'personalize' the code with your
callsign, then sell you the compiled program.

Different scenario !!

Neil, KN3ILZ

On 3/31/2019 6:38 PM, Joe wrote:

Thing that is funny about this rage?

People are fuming about how someone modified the program to make a
robot QSO Maker.

Where was all the rage when it was like a week after FT-8 was first
released. where someone automated it way back then? I mean it was very
simple to do. No coding skills or anything at all.

Take a small free program like "Auto Mouse Click" and 5 minutes later,
you have a QSO Robot.

Funny, never heard any rage back then.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 3/31/2019 2:52 PM, James Shaver wrote:

Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill.

Jim S.
N2ADV

On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler mailto:bob...@bellsouth.net>> wrote:


Bravo Bill! I agree 100%.
Bobby/N4AU
*From:* Bill Somerville
*Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM
*To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:

All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that
maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software
such as this as Open Source.


Carey,

that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and
the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided
by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no
other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and
writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing
maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to
providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest
quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons
why many closed source applications are Windows only and these
factors are high on the list.

Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted,
one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other
is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic
parts removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X
being used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided
already is only in response to large scale user demand. For example
auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because
the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next
transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction
times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule
that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g.
calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX
contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is
logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take
further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There
are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest
operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to
logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate
each QSO is always maintained.

What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends
a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions
and add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we
deem sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This
detracts from core development and maintenance and we would rather
not have to give up that effort.

On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their
questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio
operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile
and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very
annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest
they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use
their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print
them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they
can save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building,
operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station.

73
Bill
G4WJS.




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Jim Shorney]

A while back a Cuban surfaced on one of the Facebook groups describing a system 
he was coding that sounded very much like a QSO robot. After some blow back 
from other group members he backpedaled and claimed that was not at all what he 
was doing. Still, I wonder. The guy seems to be on the air making FT8 contacts 
just about every time I turn it on

73

-Jim
NU0C

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 17:38:17 -0500
Joe  wrote:

> Thing that is funny about this rage?
> 
> People are fuming about how someone modified the program to make a robot 
> QSO Maker.
> 
> Where was all the rage when it was like a week after FT-8 was first 
> released. where someone automated it way back then? I mean it was very 
> simple to do. No coding skills or anything at all.
> 
> Take a small free program like "Auto Mouse Click" and 5 minutes later, 
> you have a QSO Robot.
> 
> Funny, never heard any rage back then.
> 
> Joe WB9SBD


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Joe]

Thing that is funny about this rage?

People are fuming about how someone modified the program to make a robot 
QSO Maker.


Where was all the rage when it was like a week after FT-8 was first 
released. where someone automated it way back then? I mean it was very 
simple to do. No coding skills or anything at all.


Take a small free program like "Auto Mouse Click" and 5 minutes later, 
you have a QSO Robot.


Funny, never heard any rage back then.

Joe WB9SBD
Sig
The Original Rolling Ball Clock
Idle Tyme
Idle-Tyme.com
http://www.idle-tyme.com
On 3/31/2019 2:52 PM, James Shaver wrote:

Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill.

Jim S.
N2ADV

On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler > wrote:



Bravo Bill! I agree 100%.
Bobby/N4AU
*From:* Bill Somerville
*Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM
*To:* wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
*Subject:* Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that 
maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such 
as this as Open Source.


Carey,

that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and 
the complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided 
by third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no 
other free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and 
writing our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing 
maintenance. These components give us an essential leg up to 
providing a portable cross-platform application of the highest 
quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons why 
many closed source applications are Windows only and these factors 
are high on the list.


Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, 
one does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other 
is being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts 
removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being 
used as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided already 
is only in response to large scale user demand. For example 
auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because 
the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next 
transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction 
times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule 
that each QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling 
CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts 
the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is logged, 
WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further 
action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other 
operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating 
and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs 
but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is 
always maintained.


What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends 
a lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and 
add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem 
sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts 
from core development and maintenance and we would rather not have to 
give up that effort.


On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their 
questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio 
operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile 
and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very 
annoying. For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest 
they go a step further and dispense with the radio equipment and use 
their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and print them 
directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can 
save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and 
maintaining an Amateur Radio station.


73
Bill
G4WJS.




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 


https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 


https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[rjai...@gmail.com]

Sorry guys - pandora's box has already been opened. I do not support
automatic, unattended robot QSOs (which are illegal in USA and some
other countries) but to ignore it as not happening is denying reality.
Stathis has demonstrated this some months ago and I am certain that
many are using his technique (macros) without modifying WSJT-X source.

What we can hope is that people exercise their good judgment and not
abuse it. Or just realize that some people will always "cheat" and
live by your own moral compass.

Ria
N2RJ

On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 17:58, Jim Brown  wrote:
>
> On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
> > most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to
> > be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be
> > very annoying.
>
> That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly
> would automate my FT8 operation in this manner, but about a year ago I
> made a QSO with a robot KX3 floating from KH6 to the west coast of NA on
> a scientific raft studying oceanography of some sort. That QSO went into
> my log, because my operation was not robotic! And it filled in a very
> rare CQ Field for that award.
>
> Likewise, if I'm trying to add EU countries on 160M, I really don't care
> what is creating and controlling the signal on the other end of the QSO.
> My accomplishment is building RX and TX antennas that will get my signal
> from near San Francisco 6,000 miles over the auroral oval to EU, and dig
> that station's signal out of the noise. When I count that for DXCC, I
> did my part of the work.
>
> OTOH, I do view auto-CQ in any form, attended or not, as cluttering up
> the spectrum. I almost never call CQ using FT8 on any band but 6M, and
> even there do so sparingly. And I'm talking about the auto-repeat CQ
> built into WSJT-X.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel



-- 
Ria Jairam, N2RJ
Director, Hudson Division
ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio™
+1.973.594.6275
https://hudson.arrl.org
n...@arrl.org


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Jim Brown]

On 3/31/2019 9:53 AM, Bill Somerville wrote:
most Amateur Radio operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to 
be worthwhile and to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be 
very annoying.


That depends on what you might be trying to accomplish. I certainly 
would automate my FT8 operation in this manner, but about a year ago I 
made a QSO with a robot KX3 floating from KH6 to the west coast of NA on 
a scientific raft studying oceanography of some sort. That QSO went into 
my log, because my operation was not robotic! And it filled in a very 
rare CQ Field for that award.


Likewise, if I'm trying to add EU countries on 160M, I really don't care 
what is creating and controlling the signal on the other end of the QSO. 
My accomplishment is building RX and TX antennas that will get my signal 
from near San Francisco 6,000 miles over the auroral oval to EU, and dig 
that station's signal out of the noise. When I count that for DXCC, I 
did my part of the work.


OTOH, I do view auto-CQ in any form, attended or not, as cluttering up 
the spectrum. I almost never call CQ using FT8 on any band but 6M, and 
even there do so sparingly. And I'm talking about the auto-repeat CQ 
built into WSJT-X.


73, Jim K9YC


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Carey Fisher]

Hi Bill,
Thank you for the detailed discussion of the considerations that the dev
group has taken. And you're right: if I had thought a little bit more about
the licensing, I would have realized that you have used components (qt
etc?) that are under GPL or LGPL (or others) that require works using them
to also be issued as open source with the same license terms. My error and
I apologize.
I'm just unhappy to see the excellent work the dev team has done become
corrupted with unfortunate mods.
I want to thank you and the dev team for the excellent product. I really
enjoy ham radio more than I have in many years since y'all produced FT8!
73, Carey, WB4HXE

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:56 PM Bill Somerville 
wrote:

> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
>
> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe
> developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as
> Open Source.
>
> Carey,
>
> that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the
> complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by
> third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free
> equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own
> would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These
> components give us an essential leg up to providing a portable
> cross-platform application of the highest quality with reasonable
> development timescales. There are reasons why many closed source
> applications are Windows only and these factors are high on the list.
>
> Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one
> does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being
> offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed.
> Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO
> robot and the automation that has been provided already is only in response
> to large scale user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were
> deemed necessary for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes
> completing and the next transmission period requires super-human
> concentration and reaction times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic
> user interface rule that each QSO must be initiated by some operator
> action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal
> DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a completed QSO is
> logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must take further
> action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are other
> operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating and
> running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs but the
> requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is always
> maintained.
>
> What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot
> of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on
> tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient.
> These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core
> development and maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that
> effort.
>
> On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their
> questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio
> operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to
> find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For
> those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest they go a step further
> and dispense with the radio equipment and use their PC skills to mock up
> the certificates and awards and print them directly, that way no one else
> is being disappointed and they can save themselves a whole lot of cost and
> time building, operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio station.
>
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>


-- 
Carey Fisher
careyfis...@gmail.com
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Dave AA6YQ]

+ AA6YQ comments below

Regulations aside, why did we become hams?  If all you want is to collect QSO’s 
without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and 
equipment?  Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other 
protocol.  Some automation is helpful, too be sure, but there is such a thing 
as too much.

+ I don't care whether other hams are curious experimenters or appliance 
operators. Amateur radio encompasses a broad range of activities; no one op is 
likely to pursue all of them. Who am I to say what others should do?

+ However, we all share the RF spectrum we've been granted, and we are expected 
to courteously share that spectrum with our fellow operators worldwide. That 
means listening to a frequency before transmitting on it. That means politely 
QSYing when a change in propagation causes two previously independent QSOs to 
QRM each other.

+ There is currently only one FT8 "watering hole" defined on each band 
(ignoring the frequencies used for Fox/Hound operations). Yes, you can operate 
FT8 outside a "watering hole", but doing so makes you invisible to the majority 
of FT8 ops who are operating within a watering hole. So the public release of 
an application that makes it easy for any user to setup his or her station for 
unattended 7x24 FT8 operation with the goal of working every station not yet 
worked should be chilling. The FT8 watering holes are already quite busy; 
imagine what will happen when the unattended stations of several thousand users 
around the world jump in.

+ SQ9FVE created this application by modifying the WSJT-X source code. He 
claims in



+ that WSJT-X can also support unattended operation, but there is a huge 
difference between allowing WSJT-X to handle the next response to your CQ while 
you refresh your coffee, and allowing an application to call CQ and make QSOs 
7x24 while you are at work or sleeping or out for a bike ride.

+ I was unable to convince SQ9VFE that a public release of his application is 
irresponsible. My advice to DXers is to work what you need soon, because the 
FT8 watering holes may be overrun by unattended stations.

+ As for the wisdom of making WSJT-X open source, I will point out that the 
fully documented PSKCore library developed by Moe AE4JY has been available for 
nearly 20 years, and could be used to create an application that does in PSK31 
what SQ9VFE's application does in FT8: enable unattended operation. No 
developer ever took that step, presumably because they understood the damage it 
could do.

73,

   Dave, AA6YQ




___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[James Shaver]

Add me to that list. Well said, as always, Bill. 

Jim S. 
N2ADV 

> On Mar 31, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Bobby Chandler  wrote:
> 
> Bravo Bill! I agree 100%.
>  
> Bobby/N4AU
>  
> From: Bill Somerville
> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM
> To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents
>  
>> On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
>> All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe 
>> developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as 
>> Open Source.
> Carey,
> 
> that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the 
> complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by 
> third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free 
> equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own 
> would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These components 
> give us an essential leg up to providing a portable cross-platform 
> application of the highest quality with reasonable development timescales. 
> There are reasons why many closed source applications are Windows only and 
> these factors are high on  the list.
> 
> Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one does 
> not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being offered 
> as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. Either way the 
> WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO robot and the 
> automation that has been provided already is only in response to large scale 
> user demand. For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary 
> for FT8 because the small thinking time between decodes completing and the 
> next transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction 
> times. For QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule that each 
> QSO must be initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to 
> a CQ. At the end of a QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say 
> on whether a completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a 
> QSO but they must take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a 
> bad one. There are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like 
> contest operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related to 
> logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO 
> is always maintained.
> 
> What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot of 
> thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on tools 
> that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. These are 
> either misguided or malicious. This detracts from core development and 
> maintenance and we would rather not have to give up that effort.
> 
> On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their questionable 
> legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio operators would not 
> consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to find out that they had 
> done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For those that attempt to deploy 
> such robots, I suggest they go a step further and dispense with the radio 
> equipment and use their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and 
> print them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can 
> save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and 
> maintaining an Amateur Radio station.
> 
> 73
> Bill
> G4WJS.
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Dan Malcolm]

Correction: If all you is to collect QSO’s without actually being involved, 
makes no sense to me.  Seems like buying a good book just to look at, without 
reading it.

__
Dan – K4SHQ

From: Dan Malcolm [mailto:k4...@outlook.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 2:25 PM
To: 'WSJT software development' 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

Regulations aside, why did we become hams?  If all you want is to collect QSO’s 
without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and 
equipment?  Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other 
protocol.  Some automation is helpful, too be sure, but there is such a thing 
as too much.

Just my $0.02.
__
Dan – K4SHQ

From: w2ctx [mailto:w2...@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:49 PM
To: WSJT software development 
mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting?




Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 Original message 
From: Dave AA6YQ mailto:aa...@ambersoft.com>>
Date: 3/31/19 2:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'WSJT software development' 
mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

+ AA6YQ comments below

Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.

+ The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup 
unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are 
packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around 
the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't 
yet worked.





___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Dan Malcolm]

Regulations aside, why did we become hams?  If all you want is to collect QSO’s 
without being actually involved, why spend the time and money on education and 
equipment?  Sorry, I vote against further animation of FT8 or any other 
protocol.  Some automation is helpful, too be sure, but there is such a thing 
as too much.

Just my $0.02.
__
Dan – K4SHQ

From: w2ctx [mailto:w2...@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:49 PM
To: WSJT software development 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting?




Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

 Original message 
From: Dave AA6YQ mailto:aa...@ambersoft.com>>
Date: 3/31/19 2:30 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: 'WSJT software development' 
mailto:wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>>
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

+ AA6YQ comments below

Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.

+ The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup 
unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are 
packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around 
the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't 
yet worked.





___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[w2ctx]

How does the system know the frequency is not in use before transmitting?Sent 
from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
 Original message From: Dave AA6YQ  Date: 
3/31/19  2:30 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: 'WSJT software development' 
 Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released 
an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents + AA6YQ comments belowWhy not. Amateur Radio was 
supposed to be experimental. + The experiment could be conducted without making 
it easy for users to setup unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the 
FT8 "watering holes" are packed now? Wait until there are several thousand 
unattended stations around the world continuously CQing and attempting to work 
every callsign they haven't yet 
worked.___wsjt-devel mailing 
listwsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Dave AA6YQ]

+ AA6YQ comments below

Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. 

+ The experiment could be conducted without making it easy for users to setup 
unattended 7x24 CQing and QSO completion. Think the FT8 "watering holes" are 
packed now? Wait until there are several thousand unattended stations around 
the world continuously CQing and attempting to work every callsign they haven't 
yet worked.





___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] WSJT-X 2.0.1 QSO ADIF transmission on the UDP port. Defect or Design?

[Bill Somerville]

On 31/03/2019 19:17, Ed Stokes wrote:

Here’s what the dg.Data looks like for sub Clear(0)


But, alas, nothing happens with the WSJT-X application.

So, I must still be missing something!


Hi Ed,

that looks fine to me. What version is the WSJT-X you are using? The 
Clear UDP message was introduced in v2.0.1.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Bobby Chandler]

Bravo Bill! I agree 100%.

Bobby/N4AU

From: Bill Somerville 
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 11:53 AM
To: wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 
Subject: Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:

  All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe 
developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as Open 
Source.
Carey,

that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the 
complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by third-party 
teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other free equivalent 
components of sufficient quality and scope and writing our own would take many 
man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. These components give us an 
essential leg up to providing a portable cross-platform application of the 
highest quality with reasonable development timescales. There are reasons why 
many closed source applications are Windows only and these factors are high on 
the list.

Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one does not 
require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is being offered as a 
contribution with the contentious robotic parts removed. Either way the WSJT 
team have no interest in WSJT-X being used as a QSO robot and the automation 
that has been provided already is only in response to large scale user demand. 
For example auto-sequencing and "Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 
because the small thinking time between decodes completing and the next 
transmission period requires super-human concentration and reaction times. For 
QSO modes like FT8 we have a basic user interface rule that each QSO must be 
initiated by some operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the 
end of a QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a 
completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but they must 
take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad one. There are 
other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like contest operating and 
running a rare and popular DX operation, related to logging QSOs but the 
requirement for an operator action to initiate each QSO is always maintained.

What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a lot of 
thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and add-on tools that 
attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem sufficient. These are either 
misguided or malicious. This detracts from core development and maintenance and 
we would rather not have to give up that effort.

On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their questionable 
legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio operators would not 
consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and to find out that they had 
done so unknowingly would be very annoying. For those that attempt to deploy 
such robots, I suggest they go a step further and dispense with the radio 
equipment and use their PC skills to mock up the certificates and awards and 
print them directly, that way no one else is being disappointed and they can 
save themselves a whole lot of cost and time building, operating, and 
maintaining an Amateur Radio station.

73
Bill
G4WJS.









___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] bogus spots

[Bill Barrett]

A work around: Turning the Monitor ICON off before making band changes will
stop the wrong spots from going out.

If an op is not using CAT and tuned to the wrong band [from what WSJT
thinks] will result in stns spotted on the wrong band.

73;
Bill W2PKY


On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 1:37 PM Al Pawlowski  wrote:

> I wondered why I would occasionally see someone had spotted me on on band
> I was not working.
>
> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
> Los Osos, CA USA
>
>
>
> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 10:47:17 -0500
> From: "Ted Gisske" 
> To: "'WSJT software development'" 
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] bogus spots
>
> I note that if I change bands in FT8 mode in the middle of a 15 second
> sequence, often the stations that were being decoded on the former band get
> put out to PSK Reporter and on the screen as being on the new band.
>
> Is there merit, in the cause of "spot purity" in not displaying decodes on
> the "new" band or sending those decodes to PSK Reporter until a full decode
> period on the new band is completed?
>
> 73,
> Ted
> K9IMM
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] bogus spots

[Al Pawlowski]

I wondered why I would occasionally see someone had spotted me on on band I was 
not working.

Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
Los Osos, CA USA



> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 10:47:17 -0500
> From: "Ted Gisske" mailto:gis...@offex.com>>
> To: "'WSJT software development'"  >
> Subject: [wsjt-devel] bogus spots
> 
> I note that if I change bands in FT8 mode in the middle of a 15 second 
> sequence, often the stations that were being decoded on the former band get 
> put out to PSK Reporter and on the screen as being on the new band. 
> 
> Is there merit, in the cause of "spot purity" in not displaying decodes on 
> the "new" band or sending those decodes to PSK Reporter until a full decode 
> period on the new band is completed?
> 
> 73,
> Ted
> K9IMM

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Bill Somerville]

On 31/03/2019 17:12, Carey Fisher wrote:
All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that 
maybe developers will now think twice before releasing software such 
as this as Open Source.


Carey,

that shows a major misunderstanding of both Open Source software and the 
complexity of WSJT-X. WSJT-X uses two major components provided by 
third-party teams that are themselves Open Source. There are no other 
free equivalent components of sufficient quality and scope and writing 
our own would take many man-years of effort and ongoing maintenance. 
These components give us an essential leg up to providing a portable 
cross-platform application of the highest quality with reasonable 
development timescales. There are reasons why many closed source 
applications are Windows only and these factors are high on the list.


Aside from that, of the latest two "robot" offerings being touted, one 
does not require any changes to WSJT-X source code and the other is 
being offered as a contribution with the contentious robotic parts 
removed. Either way the WSJT team have no interest in WSJT-X being used 
as a QSO robot and the automation that has been provided already is only 
in response to large scale user demand. For example auto-sequencing and 
"Call 1st" were deemed necessary for FT8 because the small thinking time 
between decodes completing and the next transmission period requires 
super-human concentration and reaction times. For QSO modes like FT8 we 
have a basic user interface rule that each QSO must be initiated by some 
operator action, e.g. calling CQ or replying to a CQ. At the end of a 
QSO for normal DX contacts the user has the final say on whether a 
completed QSO is logged, WSJT-X will prompt the user to log a QSO but 
they must take further action to confirm a good contact or reject a bad 
one. There are other operator aids for high QSO rate situations, like 
contest operating and running a rare and popular DX operation, related 
to logging QSOs but the requirement for an operator action to initiate 
each QSO is always maintained.


What is worth noting is that the small WSJT development team expends a 
lot of thought and time on how to combat rogue patched versions and 
add-on tools that attempt to exceed the levels of automation we deem 
sufficient. These are either misguided or malicious. This detracts from 
core development and maintenance and we would rather not have to give up 
that effort.


On a personal note; my opinion on QSO robots, aside from their 
questionable legality in many countries, is that most Amateur Radio 
operators would not consider a QSO with a machine to be worthwhile and 
to find out that they had done so unknowingly would be very annoying. 
For those that attempt to deploy such robots, I suggest they go a step 
further and dispense with the radio equipment and use their PC skills to 
mock up the certificates and awards and print them directly, that way no 
one else is being disappointed and they can save themselves a whole lot 
of cost and time building, operating, and maintaining an Amateur Radio 
station.


73
Bill
G4WJS.

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Carey Fisher]

All I have to say, and I've been saying for some time now, is that maybe
developers will now think twice before releasing software such as this as
Open Source.

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 11:00 AM Jim Shorney  wrote:

>
> That statement so totally proves that you missed the point of my comment.
>
>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 11:01:54 +0200
> Georg  wrote:
>
> > Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.
> >
> > > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney :
> > >
> > >
> > > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW?
> > >
> > > 73
> > >
> > > -Jim
> > > NU0C
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700
> > > Al Pawlowski  wrote:
> > >
> > >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged
> before it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be
> "putting the cart before the horse" to me.
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get
> me a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be
> interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far
> off.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
> > >> Los Osos, CA USA
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>


-- 
Carey Fisher
careyfis...@gmail.com
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

[wsjt-devel] bogus spots

[Ted Gisske]

I note that if I change bands in FT8 mode in the middle of a 15 second 
sequence, often the stations that were being decoded on the former band get put 
out to PSK Reporter and on the screen as being on the new band. 

Is there merit, in the cause of "spot purity" in not displaying decodes on the 
"new" band or sending those decodes to PSK Reporter until a full decode period 
on the new band is completed?

73,
Ted
K9IMM



___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Jim Shorney]

That statement so totally proves that you missed the point of my comment.


On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 11:01:54 +0200
Georg  wrote:

> Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. 
> 
> > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney :
> > 
> > 
> > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW?
> > 
> > 73
> > 
> > -Jim
> > NU0C
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700
> > Al Pawlowski  wrote:
> >   
> >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before 
> >> it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the 
> >> cart before the horse" to me.
> >> 
> >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a 
> >> bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be interesting 
> >> automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far off.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
> >> Los Osos, CA USA  


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod

[Neil Zampella]

The original 'for sale' thread was removed I believe, but the threads
about that thread go on and on and on


On 3/30/2019 2:49 PM, Tag Loomis (Tag) wrote:

The post has NOT been removed, just the links to the software

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:47 AM Tom Melvin mailto:t...@tkrh.co.uk>> wrote:

Hi All

Don’t want to get into a protected discussion on this as I suspect
the Dev list is not suitable for some of it.

Take the automatic QSO Mod (I thought JTDX did that already) out
of the equation, there are a couple of other features I saw in the
posting that could be incorporated into the mainstream release:

Filter to exclude some prefixes - perhaps a local always on (JTDX
Robot), want to filter, great add the callsign to a filter list,
supports (simple) wildcard, want to ignore all Scotland, for
example, add GM* - They won’t appear.

Noise issues - filter station above and below a certain Db reports.

Can’t cope with the colour settings, can display new calls only -
filter out worked before to narrow down the ‘hit’ list.

Those three I can see being helpful and useful.

While I am against the Auto CQ option - would like to point out -
the station posting on QRZ is European, in the UK at least,
extract from Licence:


10(1) The Licensee may conduct Unattended Operation of Radio
Equipment provided that any such operation is consistent with the
terms of this Licence. Additional restrictions which apply to the
Unattended Operation of Beacons are specified in Schedule 2 to
this Licence.



So in some parts of the world it’s legal, In looking at schedule 2
- I would watch calling WSPR a beacon. UK licence excludes any
form of beacons between 3.6Mhz and 28Mhz - even then the 80m and
10m bands it is only for DF hunting. Basically 4m upwards with a
pile of other restrictions is ok - So any form of WSPR on HF is
(as far as I can tell - would love to be corrected) illegal if its
called a beacon.

Tom

P.S. I don’t like censorship so if the QRZ post has been removed
it is a little worrying at what else are we not being told - It
may be against FCC regs but not all of us are governed by them.


--
73’s

Tom
GM8MJV (IO85)





On 30 Mar 2019, at 15:23, Topher Petty mailto:ai8...@gmail.com>> wrote:


That's not only against the spirit of Amateur Radio, but it's
also against FCC rules regarding unattended operation. FT8 is NOT
a beacon, and doesn't fall under those rules.

Anyone who uses this deserves to be flogged repeatedly with a wet
noodle, and, if they're in the States, fined to the fullest
extent of the regulations.

WSPR is a beacon, FT8 is not. This pisses me off to no end.

de AI8W, Chris

On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 2:28 PM Tag Loomis mailto:tag.loo...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Sorry, but some [expletive deleted] released an Auto CQ and
Auto Responder mod to WSJT-X

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/wsjt-x-full-auto-mod.652050/

I know there’s not much to be done about it, but man this
makes me mad!


-Stephen ‘Tag’ Loomis / N0TTL
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel




---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Thomas Kocourek]

I would like to remind everyone that our beloved hobby is NOT the Internet.
Whether a fully automated station is permitted or not permitted under the
respective country's regulation, removing the operator from control of a
transmission (auto-CQ, etc.) degrades the hobby.

Ask yourself this: Why bother doing the hobby if you are willing to
relinquish control to some program? Do you want a DXCC award so badly that
you are willing to rationalise the thought of using auto-CQ?

73 de N4FWD

On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 5:25 AM Georg  wrote:

> Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental.
>
> > Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney :
> >
> >
> > And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW?
> >
> > 73
> >
> > -Jim
> > NU0C
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700
> > Al Pawlowski  wrote:
> >
> >> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before
> it’s been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the
> cart before the horse" to me.
> >>
> >> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me
> a bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be
> interesting automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far
> off.
> >>
> >>
> >> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
> >> Los Osos, CA USA
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > wsjt-devel mailing list
> > wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
>
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel
>
___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel

Re: [wsjt-devel] Someone released an Auto CQ mod - my 2 cents

[Georg]

Why not. Amateur Radio was supposed to be experimental. 

> Am 31.03.2019 um 00:08 schrieb Jim Shorney :
> 
> 
> And this helps improve one's skill as an operator HOW?
> 
> 73
> 
> -Jim
> NU0C
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2019 13:53:39 -0700
> Al Pawlowski  wrote:
> 
>> I do not have a problem with an auto-cq per se. Getting outraged before it’s 
>> been tried, or is causing an actual problem, seems to be "putting the cart 
>> before the horse" to me.
>> 
>> Personally, I would not mind being able to tell my radio “Alexa, get me a 
>> bora bora QSL” - maybe using “callsign/AI”. Now, that would be interesting 
>> automation, maybe, a real innovation and, maybe, not too far off.
>> 
>> 
>> Al Pawlowski, K6AVP
>> Los Osos, CA USA
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> wsjt-devel mailing list
> wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel


___
wsjt-devel mailing list
wsjt-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wsjt-devel