In a message dated 2/6/08 4:51:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A substantial proportion of people are naturally conservative. They don't
> react well to things being changed.
>
> Another substantial proportion of people are naturally progressive.
I would say "change oriented".
All progress involves change, but all change does not involve progress.
>
> These two forces are in a never-ending circular dance of engagement, even
> struggle. This is basically the thesis-antithesis-synthesis process of
> Hegelian dialectic, if you remember your Philosophy 101. If either side,
> thesis or antithesis, becomes all-powerful, the dialectic process is
> subverted
> and things tend to go wrong eventually.
I think there is a third kind of person: the one who is balanced between the
two forces.
> This is because Nature does have a slight built-in bias in favor of change.
>
> It's called adaptation. An individual, a species, even life collectively
> either adapts or eventually becomes extinct. Nothing stays the same forever.
>
> Stasis is not an option in this universe.
>
I don't think we know anywhere near enough about the Universe to say that.
Some forms of life here on earth have remained unchanged for tens of millions
of years, if not longer, because they were and are well-adapted. Others have
changed radically in much shorter times (domesticated animals, for example)
because it was adaptive to do so.
The laws of nature don't seem to change over time - we assume that they are
the same since the Big Bang.
One law of nature that is too often forgotten is the Law of Unintended
Consequences. When one has run afoul of that Law, one tends to be a little
cautious.....
> This small bit of potentially relevant philosophy is brought to you as a
> brief respite from the ravages of taking some things in our wonderful hobby
> way too seriously. :-)
>
I am seriously tempted to quote the Philosophy Song from Monty Python, but I
will leave that for the reader to look up.
Instead I will say this:
Contesting and DXing are essentially competitive games many of us hams play
because we think they are fun. And like any game, most of the rules are
arbitrary. And it's not life-or-death if a rule is broken, or stretched.
But that does not mean the rukes should not be taken seriously! Just the
reverse.
---
Some posts back I made a reference to a QST fiction article from 1953 about a
ham who built a totally automated SS contest station. It was science-fiction
back then, but not so fictional today. In fact, it may actually be possible
today. We already have Pactor "robots" on the ham bands.....(not going there!)
What if someone actually built a completely automatic contest station? One
that could keep pace with the very best contest ops, would never get tired or
make a mistake, would listen to every band simultaneously and analyze far more
data than any human could to maximize score, would access an enormous database
of info, etc., etc.
Should such a station be allowed to compete in the same entry class with
stations that actually need an operator?
IOW, where is the line drawn?
73 de Jim, N2EY
**************
Biggest Grammy Award surprises of all time on AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys/pictures/never-won-a-grammy?NCID=aolcmp003000000025
48)
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
