[NSRCA-discussion] 6-32 control horns WAS Chapter-12 computer science.

[Rick Wallace]

John - 
6-32 all-thread from the hardware store's been working fine... if you want I can cut some 2.63452" lengths and package them in a 'Pattern' container - for you, only $16.50 per pair ! 
 
let me know - 
Rick 



> From: jpavlick at idseng.com> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:40:20 -0400> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.> > 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 > > _______________________________________________> NSRCA-discussion mailing list> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070703/53f3d9e0/attachment-0001.html