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
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
New era beginning...
HNY 2008 from DigiQRP community.
--
Jaak Hohensee
ES1HJ/QRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
--
Jaak Hohensee
ES1HJ/QRP
--
Kirjutas ja tervitab
Jaak Hohensee
gsm +37256 560172
