<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>John - <BR>
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 ! <BR>
<BR>
let me know - <BR>
Rick <BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>
> From: jpavlick@idseng.com<BR>> To: nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:40:20 -0400<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.<BR>> <BR>> Hey, this is fun! i guess i did a good job with that one. The next time the <BR>> list is slow, I'll know what to do!<BR>> <BR>> Hey - real question: What is everyone using for 6-32 threaded control horn <BR>> setups? I heard that stainless screws are too brittle. Can I just use <BR>> zinc-plated hardware from Home Depot or will that only work on a "sport" <BR>> model? <LOL><BR>> <BR>> John Pavlick<BR>> http://www.idseng.com<BR>> <BR>> John Pavlick<BR>> http://www.idseng.com<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Keith Black" <tkeithblack@gmail.com><BR>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:32 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Matthew,<BR>> ><BR>> > syntax error: you didn't define cnt.<BR>> ><BR>> > And by the way, though in principal I agree with you about the int<BR>> > declaration (depending on John's intent) in C or C++ it's perfectly<BR>> > acceptable to increment (++) a char.<BR>> ><BR>> > Keith<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick@cox.net><BR>> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:34 PM<BR>> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> >> John,<BR>> >> What language is that for? C/C++? I don't think that function would work<BR>> >> because doing math with a data type char provides unpredictable results.<BR>> > It<BR>> >> looks like a function that would return the number 255 to the function<BR>> > that<BR>> >> called it, but I would have written it like this:<BR>> >> int foo(void){<BR>> >> int num;<BR>> >> for(num = 0; cnt < 255; num++){<BR>> >> }<BR>> >> return num;<BR>> >> }<BR>> >><BR>> >> Or better yet:<BR>> >> int foo(void){<BR>> >> return 255;<BR>> >> }<BR>> >><BR>> >> Or even better yet, if you know the number that will always be returned,<BR>> >> just make it a global constant and be done with it... Also I've never<BR>> >> intialized 2 variables in a FOR statement before. Didn't know it was<BR>> >> possible, and not quite sure I would ever need to. If the language shown<BR>> > was<BR>> >> not C/C++, then maybe in that language you can in fact do math with data<BR>> >> type char, but why would you store numbers as text? It takes far more<BR>> > space<BR>> >> to store them. Keep in mind, I haven't done actual programming in a <BR>> >> couple<BR>> >> of years so I am a little rusty (I don't consider working with access<BR>> >> databases and excel to be programming although some knowledge is <BR>> >> helpful).<BR>> >><BR>> >> Matt<BR>> >><BR>> >> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick@idseng.com><BR>> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:16 PM<BR>> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> >> > OK, what does this do?<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > char foo(void)<BR>> >> > {<BR>> >> > char cnt, num;<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > for(cnt = 0, num = 0; cnt < 256; cnt++)<BR>> >> > {<BR>> >> > num++;<BR>> >> > }<BR>> >> > return num;<BR>> >> > }<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > John Pavlick<BR>> >> > http://www.idseng.com<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> > From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick@cox.net><BR>> >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:22 AM<BR>> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> ><BR>> >> >> I'd like to see the code myself... I've got quite a bit of Computer<BR>> >> >> Science<BR>> >> >> training.<BR>> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> >> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber@clearwire.net><BR>> >> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:23 PM<BR>> >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >>> What computer language was the program written in?<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>> Send me the source code.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> >> >>> From: "W. Hinkle" <whinkle1024@msn.com><BR>> >> >>> To: <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:25 AM<BR>> >> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>>> Dave is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of<BR>> > a<BR>> >> >>>> stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and <BR>> >> >>>> haggled<BR>> >> >>>> over<BR>> >> >>>> the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than 30<BR>> >> >>>> flights<BR>> >> >>>> on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during practice at<BR>> > the<BR>> >> >>>> AMA<BR>> >> >>>> field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just<BR>> > cost<BR>> >> >>>> his<BR>> >> >>>> new model part way through the Nationals. JR had to step in and<BR>> > forced<BR>> >> >>>> the<BR>> >> >>>> hand. If it had not been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave would<BR>> >> >>>> still<BR>> >> >>>> be<BR>> >> >>>> argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it after some<BR>> >> >>>> debate<BR>> >> >>>> with JR. This is not character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good<BR>> > guy<BR>> >> >>>> just<BR>> >> >>>> don't be on the same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built<BR>> > and<BR>> >> >>>> its<BR>> >> >>>> not worth the price of a professional built kit.<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not a<BR>> >> >>>> fan<BR>> >> >>>> or<BR>> >> >>>> Eric's but my question to this forum<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> Why is the NSRCA involved at all?<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> Doesn't the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy<BR>> >> >>>> than<BR>> >> >>>> lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have<BR>> > character<BR>> >> >>>> beyond reproach?<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources, <BR>> >> >>>> time<BR>> >> >>>> and<BR>> >> >>>> money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying. Beware<BR>> > people<BR>> >> >>>> beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best buddies in D1 to write a<BR>> >> >>>> program<BR>> >> >>>> to damn a person that they and David hate with a passion. To me is<BR>> >> >>>> smells<BR>> >> >>>> like old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the<BR>> > past<BR>> >> >>>> the<BR>> >> >>>> judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it appalling the<BR>> > Board<BR>> >> >>>> even<BR>> >> >>>> had this on the agenda. I also find it appalling that a ruling was<BR>> >> >>>> made,<BR>> >> >>>> then Eric was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric<BR>> >> >>>> stated,<BR>> >> >>>> no<BR>> >> >>>> statistics can determine what the judge actually saw or better yet<BR>> > what<BR>> >> >>>> the<BR>> >> >>>> pilot actually flew. So Eric's scores were below the average for a<BR>> >> >>>> given<BR>> >> >>>> pilot. Maybe the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is <BR>> >> >>>> why<BR>> >> >>>> the<BR>> >> >>>> NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks<BR>> > very<BR>> >> >>>> one<BR>> >> >>>> sided by the NSRCA.<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick@idseng.com><BR>> >> >>>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> >>>>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> >> >>>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> >>>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:27:00 -0400<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>Len,<BR>> >> >>>>> All of the people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol'<BR>> > boys<BR>> >> >>>>>were in D2 and D3! <LOL><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>>John Pavlick<BR>> >> >>>>>http://www.idseng.com<BR>> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >> >>>>> From: Leonard Rudy<BR>> >> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM<BR>> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> John,<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict,<BR>> >> >>>>> but<BR>> >> >>>>> in<BR>> >> >>>>>the NHL<BR>> >> >>>>> those "with the power" hear both sides and let each side present<BR>> >> >>>>> their<BR>> >> >>>>>case before<BR>> >> >>>>> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties are<BR>> > imposed,<BR>> >> >>>>> the<BR>> >> >>>>>player or<BR>> >> >>>>> individual still has the right to appeal the decision.<BR>> >> >>>>> You say Eric should take whatever the powers to be want and<BR>> >> >>>>> don't<BR>> >> >>>>>make any<BR>> >> >>>>> noise or waves.<BR>> >> >>>>> This is a clear message to others who will be judging at<BR>> > meets<BR>> >> >>>>> in<BR>> >> >>>>>the future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad<BR>> > scores<BR>> >> >>>>>or<BR>> >> >>>>>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you <BR>> >> >>>>>will<BR>> >> >>>>>not<BR>> >> >>>>>like.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Len Rudy<BR>> >> >>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in<BR>> >> >>>>> other<BR>> >> >>>>>words, do not<BR>> >> >>>>> hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly<BR>> > for<BR>> >> >>>>> it<BR>> >> >>>>>one way or<BR>> >> >>>>> another.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Fred Huber <fhhuber@clearwire.net> wrote:<BR>> >> >>>>> The penalty does not appear appropriate...<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> It also sounds like it was not applied in a manner consistant<BR>> > with<BR>> >> >>>>> the<BR>> >> >>>>>rules system.<BR>> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >> >>>>> From: John Ferrell<BR>> >> >>>>> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 AM<BR>> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> I have the good fortune to not be involved in this dispute. I<BR>> > am<BR>> >> >>>>>only aware of the conflict.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer the<BR>> >> >>>>>following observations:<BR>> >> >>>>> A heated difference of opinions occurred.<BR>> >> >>>>> Every one involved is considered a valuable asset to the<BR>> > Pattern<BR>> >> >>>>>Game.<BR>> >> >>>>> Things were said that should not have been said.<BR>> >> >>>>> Every one thinks they are right.<BR>> >> >>>>> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad<BR>> > call(s)<BR>> >> >>>>> by<BR>> >> >>>>>some one.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> The conflict blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the <BR>> >> >>>>> net<BR>> >> >>>>>result was those with the power and responsibility treated it like a<BR>> >> >>>>>Hockey<BR>> >> >>>>>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual <BR>> >> >>>>>at<BR>> >> >>>>>the<BR>> >> >>>>>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the problem on<BR>> >> >>>>>ice.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> The expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its<BR>> >> >>>>>players is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored.<BR>> > The<BR>> >> >>>>>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the individual<BR>> >> >>>>>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes <BR>> >> >>>>>are<BR>> >> >>>>>handled in the world of competition.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it <BR>> >> >>>>> is<BR>> >> >>>>> still<BR>> >> >>>>>he who gets the penalty.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the<BR>> >> >>>>> human<BR>> >> >>>>>condition. Conflict is.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Eric needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those <BR>> >> >>>>> in<BR>> >> >>>>> power<BR>> >> >>>>>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and to continue the<BR>> >> >>>>>game.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> WE ALL need to be aware that we either play nice or get sent<BR>> > to<BR>> >> >>>>> the<BR>> >> >>>>>showers!<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one<BR>> >> >>>>> achieves<BR>> >> >>>>>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual to higher<BR>> >> >>>>>standards.<BR>> >> >>>>> Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> John Ferrell W8CCW<BR>> >> >>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow<BR>> >> >>>>> around the stumps"<BR>> >> >>>>> http://DixieNC.US<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> >> >>>>> From: Don Ramsey<BR>> >> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> >> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM<BR>> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his<BR>> >> >>>>> comment,<BR>> >> >>>>>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to keep the<BR>> >> >>>>>Nationals<BR>> >> >>>>>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to<BR>> >> >>>>>independently<BR>> >> >>>>>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will <BR>> >> >>>>>tell<BR>> >> >>>>>you<BR>> >> >>>>>that he got extremely mad at me for doing it."<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> I must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing the<BR>> >> >>>>> finals<BR>> >> >>>>>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff Hill was<BR>> > Event<BR>> >> >>>>>Director. It must also be stated that I've never had any pressure <BR>> >> >>>>>of<BR>> >> >>>>>any<BR>> >> >>>>>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I try<BR>> > to<BR>> >> >>>>>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge can<BR>> >> >>>>>influence<BR>> >> >>>>>the outcome extradionarly.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> Don<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >><BR>> >>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > ---<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >><BR>> >>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > ---<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> >> >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>> >> >>>>> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release <BR>> >> >>>>> Date:<BR>> >> >>>>>6/23/2007 11:08 AM<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >><BR>> >>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > -------<BR>> >> >>>>> Building a website is a piece of cake.<BR>> >> >>>>> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >><BR>> >>>>>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > -------<BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>><BR>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>>>_______________________________________________<BR>> >> >>>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >>>>>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >>>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>> -- <BR>> >> >>>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> >> >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>> >> >>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.9/872 - Release Date:<BR>> >> >>>> 6/26/2007<BR>> >> >>>> 6:43 PM<BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>>><BR>> >> >>><BR>> >> >>> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> >><BR>> >> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >> ><BR>> >> > _______________________________________________<BR>> >> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> >><BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR><BR></body>
</html>