[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
John Pavlick
jpavlick at idseng.com
Mon Jul 2 20:29:06 AKDT 2007
Sorry - I write code for embedded systems in C so a char is 8-bits and we
always use the smallest data type that we can because most of this stuff is
written for 8-bit machines, some of which only have an 8-bit accumulator.
Returning an int is messy! A char can be used for any "number" from 0 to 255
which is why it's normally used for "characters" (ASCII characters are
7-bits). The correct answer (assuming you're working with 8-bit char's) is:
"hangs in the loop and never returns". I just wanted to see if anyone would
catch it. Hey - isn't this better than talking about stuff that none of us
should be forced to understand (politics with toy airplanes)?
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
BTW - My only "coding" with Access was in VB - SQL server. Yuch.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
> John,
> What language is that for? C/C++? I don't think that function would work
> because doing math with a data type char provides unpredictable results.
> It
> looks like a function that would return the number 255 to the function
> that
> called it, but I would have written it like this:
> int foo(void){
> int num;
> for(num = 0; cnt < 255; num++){
> }
> return num;
> }
>
> Or better yet:
> int foo(void){
> return 255;
> }
>
> Or even better yet, if you know the number that will always be returned,
> just make it a global constant and be done with it... Also I've never
> intialized 2 variables in a FOR statement before. Didn't know it was
> possible, and not quite sure I would ever need to. If the language shown
> was
> not C/C++, then maybe in that language you can in fact do math with data
> type char, but why would you store numbers as text? It takes far more
> space
> to store them. Keep in mind, I haven't done actual programming in a couple
> of years so I am a little rusty (I don't consider working with access
> databases and excel to be programming although some knowledge is helpful).
>
> Matt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
>
>
>> OK, what does this do?
>>
>> char foo(void)
>> {
>> char cnt, num;
>>
>> for(cnt = 0, num = 0; cnt < 256; cnt++)
>> {
>> num++;
>> }
>> return num;
>> }
>>
>> John Pavlick
>> http://www.idseng.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to see the code myself... I've got quite a bit of Computer
>>> Science
>>> training.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What computer language was the program written in?
>>>>
>>>> Send me the source code.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "W. Hinkle" <whinkle1024 at msn.com>
>>>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:25 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of a
>>>>> stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and haggled
>>>>> over
>>>>> the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than 30
>>>>> flights
>>>>> on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during practice at the
>>>>> AMA
>>>>> field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just cost
>>>>> his
>>>>> new model part way through the Nationals. JR had to step in and forced
>>>>> the
>>>>> hand. If it had not been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave would
>>>>> still
>>>>> be
>>>>> argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it after some
>>>>> debate
>>>>> with JR. This is not character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good guy
>>>>> just
>>>>> don't be on the same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built and
>>>>> its
>>>>> not worth the price of a professional built kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not a
>>>>> fan
>>>>> or
>>>>> Eric's but my question to this forum
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is the NSRCA involved at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy
>>>>> than
>>>>> lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have character
>>>>> beyond reproach?
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources, time
>>>>> and
>>>>> money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying. Beware people
>>>>> beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best buddies in D1 to write a
>>>>> program
>>>>> to damn a person that they and David hate with a passion. To me is
>>>>> smells
>>>>> like old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the past
>>>>> the
>>>>> judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it appalling the Board
>>>>> even
>>>>> had this on the agenda. I also find it appalling that a ruling was
>>>>> made,
>>>>> then Eric was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric
>>>>> stated,
>>>>> no
>>>>> statistics can determine what the judge actually saw or better yet
>>>>> what
>>>>> the
>>>>> pilot actually flew. So Eric's scores were below the average for a
>>>>> given
>>>>> pilot. Maybe the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is why
>>>>> the
>>>>> NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks very
>>>>> one
>>>>> sided by the NSRCA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
>>>>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:27:00 -0400
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Len,
>>>>>> All of the people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol'
>>>>>> boys
>>>>>>were in D2 and D3! <LOL>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John Pavlick
>>>>>>http://www.idseng.com
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Leonard Rudy
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the NHL
>>>>>> those "with the power" hear both sides and let each side present
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>case before
>>>>>> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties are
>>>>>> imposed,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>player or
>>>>>> individual still has the right to appeal the decision.
>>>>>> You say Eric should take whatever the powers to be want and
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>make any
>>>>>> noise or waves.
>>>>>> This is a clear message to others who will be judging at meets
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad scores
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you will
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Len Rudy
>>>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>words, do not
>>>>>> hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly for
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>one way or
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred Huber <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The penalty does not appear appropriate...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also sounds like it was not applied in a manner consistant
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>rules system.
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: John Ferrell
>>>>>> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the good fortune to not be involved in this dispute. I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>>only aware of the conflict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer the
>>>>>>following observations:
>>>>>> A heated difference of opinions occurred.
>>>>>> Every one involved is considered a valuable asset to the
>>>>>> Pattern
>>>>>>Game.
>>>>>> Things were said that should not have been said.
>>>>>> Every one thinks they are right.
>>>>>> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad call(s)
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>some one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conflict blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the net
>>>>>>result was those with the power and responsibility treated it like a
>>>>>>Hockey
>>>>>>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual at
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the problem on
>>>>>>ice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its
>>>>>>players is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored. The
>>>>>>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the individual
>>>>>>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes are
>>>>>>handled in the world of competition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it is
>>>>>> still
>>>>>>he who gets the penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the
>>>>>> human
>>>>>>condition. Conflict is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those in
>>>>>> power
>>>>>>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and to continue the
>>>>>>game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WE ALL need to be aware that we either play nice or get sent to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>showers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one
>>>>>> achieves
>>>>>>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual to higher
>>>>>>standards.
>>>>>> Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Ferrell W8CCW
>>>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow
>>>>>> around the stumps"
>>>>>> http://DixieNC.US
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Don Ramsey
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his
>>>>>> comment,
>>>>>>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to keep the
>>>>>>Nationals
>>>>>>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to
>>>>>>independently
>>>>>>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will tell
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>that he got extremely mad at me for doing it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing the
>>>>>> finals
>>>>>>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff Hill was
>>>>>>Event
>>>>>>Director. It must also be stated that I've never had any pressure of
>>>>>>any
>>>>>>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I try
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge can
>>>>>>influence
>>>>>>the outcome extradionarly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date:
>>>>>>6/23/2007 11:08 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Building a website is a piece of cake.
>>>>>> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.9/872 - Release Date:
>>>>> 6/26/2007
>>>>> 6:43 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list