[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
John Pavlick
jpavlick at idseng.com
Mon Jul 2 20:40:59 AKDT 2007
Hey, this is fun! i guess i did a good job with that one. The next time the
list is slow, I'll know what to do!
Hey - real question: What is everyone using for 6-32 threaded control horn
setups? I heard that stainless screws are too brittle. Can I just use
zinc-plated hardware from Home Depot or will that only work on a "sport"
model? <LOL>
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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