Compass trouble

For this very reason...

I LOVE top posters!



Dave (and I trim too!)




On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:21:27 GMT, Jay Maynard
wrote:

On 2008-04-19, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:48:40 -0700, "RST Engineering"

---Snip---
There are folks around here who refuse to trim at all. I use a 43-line
terminal window to read Usenet with, and when it's full of stuff quoted 7
layers deep, I just hit N and go to the next message.

Posting like that just gives ammunition to those who argue that people
should adopt the equally abhorrent practice of top-posting.

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-19, Jay Somerset wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:48:40 -0700, "RST Engineering"
wrote:
Do you really have to quote a hundred lines of previous text for a four
line
answer?
There are folks around here who refuse to trim at all. I use a 43-line
terminal window to read Usenet with, and when it's full of stuff quoted 7
layers deep, I just hit N and go to the next message.

Apparently your curiosity got the best of you since you bothered to not only
scroll through to find the 4 new lines of text but also (roughly) counted
the quoted text.

Some post on top. Some post at the bottom. Some trim. Some don't.

Using a mouse wheel to scroll works pretty well. There have been times when
people trim excessively and I have to go find a past post that didn't trim
to refresh my memory as to the context. I would rather have excessive
quoting that requires a fraction of a second to scroll past than excessive
trimming that makes me unfilter read articles, find the thread in the long
list, re-find my position in the thread and then find a post that has enough
context to be useful.

Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much simpler,
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy scroll
away but easily ignored.

It seems that the phylosophy to bottom post is causing the problem. Bottom
posting makes all the intermediate text get in the way and trimming becomes
the curtious thing to do. Just top post and leave it all there. When the
thread gets too long, it's probably time to move on to something else
anyway.

I have been bottom posting and trimming just to go along with the vocal few
that seem to get all bent out of shape otherwise. After thinking about, I
think I'll start top posting.

Of course, mixed top and bottom does get a little confusing...

--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

Your math is simply complete BS, as well as your 50-100 yards.



"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:51:13 -0700, "karl mcgruber" skywagon
wrote:



"Jay Somerset"
You would have to taxi
for at least 50-100 yards to have a reliable track.

But yes, in theory, this would work.
--
Jay

No. 10 or 20 feet will be just fine.

No it won't. Watch a stationary GPS give you a position that wobbles
up to 20-50 feet away from its centroid. If you use a very short
track, you could be out way more than the allowable compass deviation.

Simple geometry -- work out the angular error with just a 10 foot
lateral error from a 20 foot base. (Hint: 30 degrees)
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

On 2008-04-19, Travis Marlatte wrote:
Using a mouse wheel to scroll works pretty well.

Not when reading news in a text mode reader in a terminal window, it
doesn't.

I would rather have excessive quoting that requires a fraction of a second
to scroll past than excessive trimming that makes me unfilter read
articles, find the thread in the long list, re-find my position in the
thread and then find a post that has enough context to be useful.

Optimize for the common case. Out of how many articles do you have to do
this once?

Further, your newsreader almost certainly has a function to read the parent
of the article you're currently on. Try using that; it makes life a lot
simpler.

Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much simpler,
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy scroll
away but easily ignored.

Just because Microsoft screwed this up is no reason to enshrine it in
practice.

It seems that the phylosophy to bottom post is causing the problem. Bottom
posting makes all the intermediate text get in the way and trimming becomes
the curtious thing to do. Just top post and leave it all there. When the
thread gets too long, it's probably time to move on to something else
anyway.

Top posting is evil because it totally divorces your response from what
you're responding to, thus destroying any context in your replies.

Do you have conversations backwards? Then why post that way?

I have been bottom posting and trimming just to go along with the vocal few
that seem to get all bent out of shape otherwise. After thinking about, I
think I'll start top posting.

There are a nonzero number of people who ignore those discourteous enough to
top post.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

In article ,
"Travis Marlatte" wrote:

no. because we read top down not bottom up.


away but easily ignored.
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy scroll
Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much simpler,

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

Just because Microsoft screwed this up is no reason to enshrine it in
practice.

Eventually the real story of top-posting will come out. Some engineers
at microsoft wanted to prove how bad they could make the GUI and
still have the lemmings thinks it's a wonderful thing. :-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:39:48 -0700, "karl mcgruber" skywagon
wrote:


"Jay Somerset" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:51:13 -0700, "karl mcgruber" skywagon
wrote:



"Jay Somerset"
You would have to taxi
for at least 50-100 yards to have a reliable track.

But yes, in theory, this would work.
--
Jay

No. 10 or 20 feet will be just fine.

No it won't. Watch a stationary GPS give you a position that wobbles
up to 20-50 feet away from its centroid. If you use a very short
track, you could be out way more than the allowable compass deviation.

Simple geometry -- work out the angular error with just a 10 foot
lateral error from a 20 foot base. (Hint: 30 degrees)
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)
Your math is simply complete BS, as well as your 50-100 yards.

And I suppose you believe the world is flat, as well.

If you are so convinced that I am wrong, and that you can get a good
deviation card using a 10-20 taxi, then go ahead. And when you get a
"say heading" from ATC, don't say I didn't warn you.

But then, MS Flight Sim probably doesn't ever give you that audio, so
you probably won't hear it after all.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

But then, MS Flight Sim probably doesn't ever give you that audio, so
you probably won't hear it after all.
--
Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)


Since "somerset" doesn't appear in the FAA pilot database, I'd be guessing
you're the one playing games while I'm out flying for a living. Certainly
your knowledge portends that.

MS didn't invent email.

But otherwise, feel free to ignore this top post.
--
-------------------------------
Travis
Lake N3094P
PWK

"Jay Maynard" wrote in message
...
On 2008-04-19, Travis Marlatte wrote:
Using a mouse wheel to scroll works pretty well.

Not when reading news in a text mode reader in a terminal window, it
doesn't.

I would rather have excessive quoting that requires a fraction of a
second
to scroll past than excessive trimming that makes me unfilter read
articles, find the thread in the long list, re-find my position in the
thread and then find a post that has enough context to be useful.

Optimize for the common case. Out of how many articles do you have to do
this once?

Further, your newsreader almost certainly has a function to read the
parent
of the article you're currently on. Try using that; it makes life a lot
simpler.

Email threads are typically top post oriented. That makes it much
simpler,
doesn't it? The new text is right at the top and the rest is an easy
scroll
away but easily ignored.

Just because Microsoft screwed this up is no reason to enshrine it in
practice.

It seems that the phylosophy to bottom post is causing the problem.
Bottom
posting makes all the intermediate text get in the way and trimming
becomes
the curtious thing to do. Just top post and leave it all there. When the
thread gets too long, it's probably time to move on to something else
anyway.

Top posting is evil because it totally divorces your response from what
you're responding to, thus destroying any context in your replies.

Do you have conversations backwards? Then why post that way?

I have been bottom posting and trimming just to go along with the vocal
few
that seem to get all bent out of shape otherwise. After thinking about, I
think I'll start top posting.

There are a nonzero number of people who ignore those discourteous enough
to
top post.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

On 2008-04-21, Travis Marlatte wrote:
MS didn't invent email.

No, they didn't. Before Outlook screwed up everyone's expectations, though,
top-posting was universally reviled. Microsoft's mistake changed all that,
and not for the better.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)