Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

donate to eham
   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Is FT8 "Automatic Digital Control" as defined by the FCC?  (Read 6912 times)
WO7R
Member

Posts: 3251




Ignore
« Reply #15 on: April 03, 2018, 11:11:55 AM »

Quote
you will see how to easily

"Easy" here includes installing some third party extension to Windows and downloading a macro.  There are very good amateurs for whom that may as well be a request to build a spacecraft.

It's a very clever hack, give the devil their due, but it is hardly "off the shelf" for the average user.
Logged
LA7GIA
Member

Posts: 173




Ignore
« Reply #16 on: April 03, 2018, 11:20:18 AM »

It should also be pointed out that (as far as I can make out) SV5DKL is hostile to the mode.

In any case he deliberately hacked the code to do something the designers did not intend.

Well, if I wanted to violate the 10 minute rule, I could fire up the Alpha, put a rubber band around my Begali paddles, and easily violate the rules.

Is ETO or Begali responsible if I do that?

No. He did not hack the code. He used a freeware called quick macro available to everybody. Its not hacking of wsjtx. He also says in the  video he is not against any mode. He just showed us how stupid it is when in the end computers are talking to computers unlike SSB and CW. (And traditional RTTY).
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 3251




Ignore
« Reply #17 on: April 03, 2018, 11:37:15 AM »

Quote
Its not hacking of wsjtx

By any reasonable definition of the term, that's still hacking.

He is changing some key design decisions by deliberately eliminating the very human interaction we are discussing.

And, as far as I can make out, he did so maliciously.  But, if I am mistaken, it still doesn't matter.

So he didn't have to master a C++ toolchain to do it.

So what?  It's still coding, my friend.  Off the shelf, the software does not behave that way and it deliberately does not do so.

He knew that.  He's almost certainly making mischief and you are hiding behind distinctions that do not matter to aid him.  Why?

I have professionally deployed code of just that sort many times.  A compiler has never been necessary to accomplish custom coding.
Logged
KJ4Z
Member

Posts: 1220




Ignore
« Reply #18 on: April 03, 2018, 11:45:21 AM »

I found an FT8 QSO with SV5DKL in my logs from earlier this year.  I wonder if I worked a robot?  To the point, I don't really care.  I pressed the buttons on my side as a human, the QSO was uploaded to LoTW and I got my counter.  If I can't tell whether it's a human on the other side, and the station is operating properly and reliably, does it even matter?  Note that it could just as easily have been a RTTY or CW robot.  They would require a bit more work, but entirely doable, and we would incorrectly assume that it was a human on the other side.

How would the FCC even go about enforcing a control-point presence requirement, if the apparent operation of the station were identical whether or not a human were present?
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 3251




Ignore
« Reply #19 on: April 03, 2018, 11:53:25 AM »

Quote
(And traditional RTTY).

Really?  What is "traditional RTTY" these days?  I could hack up MTTY, Fldigi, and the others to do what he did.  In the end, all he has is a macro with enough smarts to run a state transition diagram (FSM).  That's a pretty sophisticated macro, but that's all it is in the end.  In a contest, a RTTY equivalent, while more work, would probably work well enough, albeit with more state than FT8.

Do you really think there are many amateurs left with ASR 33s connected to their rig?  And even if they did, what would it matter if the other side of the conversation was hacked?

If CW skimmer was just a little more accurate, and it might well be someday, we will be having this same conversation for CW as we already can for RTTY.

All he has 'shown' is that if we hack code to do what it isn't designed to do, then we will get effects we might not want.  Well, duh.

But he also seems to be inviting the very problem he claims to oppose.  Had he not hacked (yes, really, he did), we would not be having this conversation.

Re-write his macro, from scratch.  I guarantee you will find it non-trivial.
Logged
WO7R
Member

Posts: 3251




Ignore
« Reply #20 on: April 03, 2018, 11:55:17 AM »

Quote
How would the FCC even go about enforcing a control-point presence requirement,

Especially in Greece.
Logged
K0UA
Member

Posts: 2807




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: April 03, 2018, 01:17:13 PM »

The fellow that developed the macro and went to all the trouble did so because he was angry with the ARRL/LOTW that the mode was included and eligible for DXCC. He had/has an axe to grind and he will tell you so. I have no idea why anyone would become so angry about such a trivial thing. But he did. But it certainly is not a path we should follow.   This thread needs to die a natural and quick death.
Logged
N0UN
Member

Posts: 135


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #22 on: April 03, 2018, 03:36:39 PM »


This thread needs to die a natural and quick death.

Same with FT8. Natural and quick.

N0UN
Logged

K2FW
Member

Posts: 205




Ignore
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2018, 04:04:47 PM »


This thread needs to die a natural and quick death.

Same with FT8. Natural and quick.

N0UN
AMEN..........

The ARRL should never had included these sub-audilbe modes into their DXCC program.  In doing so, they've manged to make their awards little more then toilet paper.
Logged
N3QE
Member

Posts: 5472




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: April 03, 2018, 04:11:13 PM »

Ham: This Robot will do everything for me! Robot, activate yourself and work the ARRL Grid Challenge for me!

[The Robot flips its own on switch and powers up. It begins building a log periodic array and starts rotating the radio knobs and making QSO's.]

Ham: [Relaxing with a beer] Ah!

[We see a clock. The hands spin. Years later, the ham, now older, is still kicking back as an ARRL official enters with a big gold prize.]

ARRL Official: For a lifetime of ham radio achievement, we present this award to... Your Robot!

[The official gives the Robot the trophy.]

Ham: If only I'd programmed the Robot to be more careful what I wished for! Robot, experience this tragic irony for me!

[The Robot falls to his knees.]

Robot: [extendedly] No!

[The ham open a beer and takes a sip.]

Ham: Ah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKZNOnLUBmQ
Logged
KJ4Z
Member

Posts: 1220




Ignore
« Reply #25 on: April 03, 2018, 04:27:30 PM »

I totally agree with the comments above.  Anything but spark makes it too easy.  If a coherer was good enough for, uh, great, great Grandpa, it should be good enough for us!
Logged
N5INP
Member

Posts: 1964




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: April 03, 2018, 04:37:42 PM »

I totally agree with the comments above.  Anything but spark makes it too easy.  If a coherer was good enough for, uh, great, great Grandpa, it should be good enough for us!

LOL right. You can take it all the way down the rabbit hole -

Any ham that doesn't have a home-made receiver and transmitter shouldn't be eligible for a DXCC award.

Any ham that doesn't make their own antenna isn't a True Ham Operator.

Any ham that uses any mode at all other than the One True Mode - CW - isn't eligible for an award ...  Roll Eyes

These arguments against new modes make me chuckle. Technology advances all the time - move into the future or be left behind.
Logged
K0YQ
Member

Posts: 1372




Ignore
« Reply #27 on: April 03, 2018, 04:48:13 PM »

Nobody uses FT8 anymore.  The FT8 watering holes are too crowded.
Logged
VE3VEE
Member

Posts: 1818




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2018, 05:00:32 PM »


These arguments against new modes make me chuckle. Technology advances all the time - move into the future or be left behind.


+1

But I understand their sentiment, and I can sympathize with them. In the late 1970s early 1980s I was equally passionate against computers in ham radio.

Marvin VE3VEE
Logged
N0UN
Member

Posts: 135


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2018, 05:23:06 PM »

Ham Radio operators.  Communicators by choice.  I've never met a Ham that couldn't communicate - it's what we do.

But what it FT8?  Is it a QSO?  Or a contact?  Is it a human reaching out and communicating, or is it nothing more than a self-propelled computer handshake?  My computer made a few FT8 contacts - I didn't see the fun in watching my computer screen so I unloaded the software.  Not even sure why I uploaded those computer generated contacts to LoTW?  Seeing somebody's computer respond to my computer did absolutely nothing for me.  Anticlimactic.

FT8 moving Ham Radio into the future?  Hardly.  I don't see it.  But then again, that's what makes Ham Radio great - all these different facets.  Some wait for the flavor of the day to build, and some wait for the flavor of the day to die.  Nobody's right, nobody's wrong - it just is.

In the meantime - see you in the human propelled pileups!

N0UN
Logged

Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!