[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
Ed Alt
ed_alt at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 3 00:06:21 AKDT 2007
John:
Yeah, just get the all-thread stuff.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 11:40 PM
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
>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list