[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
Keith Black
tkeithblack at gmail.com
Mon Jul 2 20:32:32 AKDT 2007
Matthew,
syntax error: you didn't define cnt.
And by the way, though in principal I agree with you about the int
declaration (depending on John's intent) in C or C++ it's perfectly
acceptable to increment (++) a char.
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:34 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