[NSRCA-discussion] 6-32 control horns WAS Chapter-12 computerscience.
John Pavlick
jpavlick at idseng.com
Mon Jul 2 22:16:48 AKDT 2007
Sounds like a good deal but I need metric lengths: 68.5mm. I'll pay extra for that! <LOL>
John Pavlick
http://www.idseng.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Wallace
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:03 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 6-32 control horns WAS Chapter-12 computerscience.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070703/0da25c64/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list