[NSRCA-discussion] 6-32 control horns WAS Chapter-12 computerscience.
Ed Miller
edbon85 at charter.net
Tue Jul 3 03:13:52 AKDT 2007
I've been using 3mm bolts, finer thread than 6-32.
Ed M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Wallace" <rickwallace45 at hotmail.com>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list