Return-Path: Received: from rly-me06.mx.aol.com (rly-me06.mail.aol.com [172.20.83.40]) by air-me04.mail.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILINME043-9c44b080b2262; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:45:53 -0500 Received: from post.thorcom.com (post.thorcom.com [193.82.116.20]) by rly-me06.mx.aol.com (v125.7) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINME068-9c44b080b2262; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:45:40 -0500 Received: from majordom by post.thorcom.com with local (Exim 4.14) id 1NBs8p-0006hs-EA for rs_out_1@blacksheep.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:44:51 +0000 Received: from [83.244.159.144] (helo=relay3.thorcom.net) by post.thorcom.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1NBs8o-0006hj-OS for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:44:50 +0000 Received: from web28102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com ([217.146.182.122]) by relay3.thorcom.net with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1NBs8o-0001Xf-I0 for rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:44:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 21799 invoked by uid 60001); 21 Nov 2009 15:44:45 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1258818285; bh=CGUrVIX5in/BC4dgwrh5aYq7tkhHVg89hxkKw02+c3w=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qPANyEBIUdb/dIjpX94WYTs//zA8RYMRRW9fO7TuoQuC2ECsw+EL2WpGgOy37O4ha7zjcwrHxMlMVW5ip5KzsUCZ/8yA89GUzI8mUaR5Fb1n2NJ3sauMtZCrCpw3szSanIfuLE5BijX2QQ5EV/57iDlXlaaREy5CfrtPaptR1/o= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XE7dmGS1pGDYoKR/z8Jf/6pGJ+NunVUCSHihRFoqafbDyCZnQr/D3lDBt3X7QaBu8cmtQZN3MRwnhpAp2EcDPr32MNroWXWucV9Q2WVWUJPEQHdO3wGZJ3dAJlc/RNPsFUbYizuDvAg3syT6m6Mtv5FynEwo5SDraXL/yQLWzN4=; Message-ID: <11159.21786.qm@web28102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 7lXijS0VM1kRQMz5G6ox_4W9lnm6GUgkgN2y3nqKFzyC3XwIukAEe3fC7LMwNVcjXgx4Ni4hUlcPtF6x84rubsvcdOdWxJbwFcKBDjLThwq9Du4ZQWLHU3Osti44KFJLHJ6fdt2a9OXr6N91pE62jSLmTbxc0SEtiHN7VzqbEKEg4YD5.tuZBpxmHAXV6IGFIhsc2OvyxAt4.j_JeCCcq._SHLW.jezcFdPFswpRBWX6Px3HaSLWPVSsq1VkRNpzDVVgx44EQ1fA540xh7RPgAnO28P9xBhexeYFnwxzgjk45NwqQehtwSHv5GW_ykWdcK36ixiRKZFeOQ-- Received: from [86.140.72.176] by web28102.mail.ukl.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:44:44 GMT X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/8.1.6 YahooMailWebService/0.8.100.260964 Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:44:44 +0000 (GMT) From: M0FMT To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 DomainKey-Status: good (testing) Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-350890835-1258818284=:21786" X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on post.thorcom.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.63 X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes Sender: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org X-Listname: rsgb_lf_group X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rs_out_1@blacksheep.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-AOL-IP: 193.82.116.20 X-AOL-SCOLL-AUTHENTICATION: mail_rly_antispam_dkim-d272.1 ; domain : yahoo.co.uk DKIM : pass --0-350890835-1258818284=:21786 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =A0 Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? =A0 (Philip=A0K Dick 1928 -1982) =A0 =A0 73 petefmt --- On Sat, 21/11/09, Graham wrote: From: Graham Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org Date: Saturday, 21 November, 2009, 14:35 Can only=A0 dream of=A0 working dx like this=A0 on cw=A0 ... 2009-11-21 13:54=A0=A0=A09M3KKR=A0=A0=A00.503906=A0=A0=A0-23=A0=A0=A01=A0= =A0=A0OL69=A0=A0=A01000=A0=A0=A0G3ZJO=20 IO92ng=A0=A0=A08894=A0=A0=A0325 mind=A0 you=A0 after=A0 watching the=A0 movie=A0 ...perhaps=A0 machine's= can dream as=20 well=A0 ? G .. -------------------------------------------------- From: "James Cowburn" Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 2:12 PM To: Subject: RE: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO > > How do you know they are unattended? > > > Jim > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of mal hamilton > Sent: 21 November 2009 14:05 > To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org > Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO > > Two unattended machines had a QSO!!=A0 Is that what you mean. > g3kev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andy Talbot" > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 1:52 PM > Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO > > > CanI suggest you read thoroughly the documentation on how the mode > works before making claims about the database.and validity.=A0=A0=A0The > database can only be updated by stations decoding and reportoing, and > if each QSO partner has a reciprocal report in the database for > near-adjacent time intervals , then they MUST have been in contact > with eachother and cannot be classed as anything bu a valid QSO. Its > impossible to have achieved this in any other way. > > Please read all the documentation first. > > Andy > www.g4jnt.com > > This email has been scanned for damaging side-effects by the health > and safety police > > > > 2009/11/21 Wolf Ostwald : >> Hello group ! >> >> >> >> I am not an expert with WSPR at all. But I followed the discussion > regarding >> false detection of calls thru the database. >> >> To my understanding the WSPR operator has NO way to really find out > whether >> the computer came to the right conclusion about the calls received, or >> whether it just judged by means of plausibility. We humans have no sens= e > for >> phaseshift, that means we have to believe the machine. >> >> I think that the database in the background is like a walking stick for > the >> blind. >> >> Of course it's a new and exciting technology, but I doubt that it is on > one >> and the same level with a regular exchange and therefore should not be >> considered equally verifying a valid contact. >> >> My two pence worth de wolf df2py >> >> > > > > >=20 =20 --0-350890835-1258818284=:21786 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
 
(Philip K Dick 1928 -1982)
 
 
73 petefmt

--- On Sat, 21/11/09, Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.= fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

From: Graham <g8fzk@g8fzk.fsnet.co.uk>Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.o= rg
Date: Saturday, 21 November, 2009, 14:35

Can only  dream of  working dx like this&= nbsp; on cw  ...

2009-11-21 13:54   9M3KKR = ;  0.503906   -23   1  &= nbsp;OL69   1000   G3ZJO
IO92ng &nb= sp; 8894   325

mind  you  after = watching the  movie  ...perhaps  machine's can dream as well  ?

G ..

----------------------------------------= ----------
From: "James Cowburn" <james.cowburn@virgin.net>
Sent: Saturday, No= vember 21, 2009 2:12 PM
To: <rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org>
Subject: RE= : LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO

>
> How do you know they are unattended?
><= BR>>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> -----Original= Message-----
> From: owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
>= [mailto:owner-rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org] On Behalf Of mal hamilton=
> Sent: 21 November 2009 14:05
> To: rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org
= > Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
>
> Two unattended= machines had a QSO!!  Is that what you mean.
> g3kev
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Talbot" <andy.g4jnt@googlemail.com>
> To:= <rsgb_lf= _group@blacksheep.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 1:= 52 PM
> Subject: Re: LF: WSPR : QSO or not QSO
>
>
&g= t; CanI suggest you read thoroughly the documentation on how the mode
&= gt; works before making claims about the database.and validity.  = ; The
> database can only be updated by stations decoding and= reportoing, and
> if each QSO partner has a reciprocal report in th= e database for
> near-adjacent time intervals , then they MUST have= been in contact
> with eachother and cannot be classed as anything= bu a valid QSO. Its
> impossible to have achieved this in any other way.
>> Please read all the documentation first.
>
> Andy
>= ; www.g4jnt.com
>
> This email has been scanned for damaging= side-effects by the health
> and safety police
>
>
&= gt;
> 2009/11/21 Wolf Ostwald <df2py@t-online.de>:
>> Hello group !
>>
= >>
>>
>> I am not an expert with WSPR at all. But= I followed the discussion
> regarding
>> false detection= of calls thru the database.
>>
>> To my understanding= the WSPR operator has NO way to really find out
> whether
>&g= t; the computer came to the right conclusion about the calls received, or<= BR>>> whether it just judged by means of plausibility. We humans hav= e no sense
> for
>> phaseshift, that means we have to believe the machine.>>
>> I think that the database in the background is like= a walking stick for
> the
>> blind.
>>
>>= ; Of course it's a new and exciting technology, but I doubt that it is on<= BR>> one
>> and the same level with a regular exchange and the= refore should not be
>> considered equally verifying a valid cont= act.
>>
>> My two pence worth de wolf df2py
>><= BR>>>
>
>
>
>
>



=

=20 --0-350890835-1258818284=:21786--