Unnecessary verbiage or sensible redundancy?

Bill Denton wrote:

Real programmers don't have the time to waste on WYSIWYG. I have been
building web sites with Visual InterDev since 1995 and never used WYSIWYG. I
code for about an hour, open the page in IE, then continue coding.

While the rest of us are on our second beer. But that's the price we
pay for not being real.

Newps wrote:
You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.

--
David Rind

David Rind wrote:
Newps wrote:

You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three
airplanes below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The
investstigation reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the
ground or any obstacles and it goes away.


Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.

Hey, it's the FAA. Safety was never compromised, until you die. Then
maybe it was.

"David Rind" wrote in message
...
Newps wrote:
You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.


See David, if he actually *has* a mid-air or runs someone into a mountain,
FAA will promote him into ATC Management, or else make him a "Quality
Assurance" staff specialist (where he gets to tell real controllers where
they made procedural mistakes). Until his promotion though, his fellow
controllers are stuck carrying him on the roster, and the pilots he serves
are stuck with his "service". After all, we have to run ATC like a
business, and he has certain employment rights. As long as we keep
publically saying "safety was never compromised", the company can't do a
thing...

Chip, ZTL

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
First, you can't enter every byte value from the command line. Try CTRL-Z.
And there are lots of other things you can't enter from the command line.

Sure I can. I just can't use the built-in "copy con" command.

Second, you could not realistically determine the byte values to use
without
first creating the Word document, then reverse engineering it.

How do you know? Are you claiming it's impossible for any person to know
the Word document file format?

Your claims are getting dumber and dumber.

Again, another bad example.

I can see that you *really* have a need to find fault where none exists. I
apologize for not being an appropriate target for you to satisfy your need.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
First, you can't enter every byte value from the command line. Try
CTRL-Z.
And there are lots of other things you can't enter from the command
line.

Sure I can. I just can't use the built-in "copy con" command.

If you can't do it with COPY CON the how would you propose to do it? Keep in
mind that you have to do it from the command line; "notepad.exe" doesn't
count.



Second, you could not realistically determine the byte values to use
without
first creating the Word document, then reverse engineering it.

How do you know? Are you claiming it's impossible for any person to know
the Word document file format?

That's why you should read all of the words in the sentence:
"realistiically". I suppose it is possible for someone to memorize the Word
file format, but I doubt if anyone with a life would bother. Just cosider
the byte values associated with a single character: font, size, color, bold,
underline, italic, et al. And then you may have to change the attributes
after that character.



Your claims are getting dumber and dumber.

I'm not making any claims, I am simply stating facts.



Again, another bad example.

I can see that you *really* have a need to find fault where none exists.
I
apologize for not being an appropriate target for you to satisfy your
need.

I don't have a need for anything. I did go back and review some of your
previous posts and realized that you are a person who obviously knows
everything there is to know. I hope your delusions carry you a long way; if
not, let me know, and I can tell you where to buy a clue.

This is so far off topic that I wish I had not become involved; my only
intent was to point out a glaringly stupid statement in the first post of
yours I saw on this thread. So I'm out of this one until it comes back to
flying...



Pete

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
If you can't do it with COPY CON the how would you propose to do it?

Any program that allows creation of files, and which supports quoting of
special-use characters or otherwise allows direct entry of bytes.

It would take any competent programmer approximate 10 minutes to write such
a program.

That's why you should read all of the words in the sentence:
"realistiically".

You introduced that word yourself. I am not under any obligation to abide
by it.

I suppose it is possible for someone to memorize the Word
file format, but I doubt if anyone with a life would bother.

The point is not whether "anyone with a life would bother". It's whether
the fact that you can create a Word document from the command prompt makes
the command prompt a word processor.

It does not, just as the fact that you can create an HTML page in Word does
NOT make Word an HTML editor.

I'm not making any claims, I am simply stating facts.

False facts.

I don't have a need for anything.

Of course you do. Otherwise you would not have invested so much in your ego
here.

[...]
This is so far off topic that I wish I had not become involved; my only
intent was to point out a glaringly stupid statement in the first post of
yours I saw on this thread.

Point out how? By posting your own glaringly stupid statements? Uh huh...

Look, someone who cannot understand the difference between a program and the
command line is far too stupid for me to waste my time on...



"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
If you can't do it with COPY CON the how would you propose to do it?

Any program that allows creation of files, and which supports quoting of
special-use characters or otherwise allows direct entry of bytes.

It would take any competent programmer approximate 10 minutes to write
such
a program.

That's why you should read all of the words in the sentence:
"realistiically".

You introduced that word yourself. I am not under any obligation to abide
by it.

I suppose it is possible for someone to memorize the Word
file format, but I doubt if anyone with a life would bother.

The point is not whether "anyone with a life would bother". It's whether
the fact that you can create a Word document from the command prompt makes
the command prompt a word processor.

It does not, just as the fact that you can create an HTML page in Word
does
NOT make Word an HTML editor.

I'm not making any claims, I am simply stating facts.

False facts.

I don't have a need for anything.

Of course you do. Otherwise you would not have invested so much in your
ego
here.

[...]
This is so far off topic that I wish I had not become involved; my only
intent was to point out a glaringly stupid statement in the first post
of
yours I saw on this thread.

Point out how? By posting your own glaringly stupid statements? Uh
huh...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Look, someone who cannot understand the difference between a program and
the
command line is far too stupid for me to waste my time on...

Failing to make any headway justifying your own argument, you resort to ad
hominem attacks. How well does that crutch work for you in the rest of your
life?

Chip Jones wrote:
"David Rind" wrote in message
...

Newps wrote:

You ought to come here. We have pretty much made the MVA map
irrelavant. We have had the same guy, the SAME GUY, get three airplanes
below the MVA three times in the last 6 months. The investstigation
reveals that the aircraft was not within 2000/3 of the ground or any
obstacles and it goes away.

Um, this isn't the most reassuring post I've seen recently. Isn't there
something you can do about this? If we were hearing about some pilot who
was repeatedly putting others at risk, various people on the group would
be recommending dropping a dime on him.



See David, if he actually *has* a mid-air or runs someone into a mountain,
FAA will promote him into ATC Management, or else make him a "Quality
Assurance" staff specialist (where he gets to tell real controllers where
they made procedural mistakes). Until his promotion though, his fellow
controllers are stuck carrying him on the roster, and the pilots he serves
are stuck with his "service". After all, we have to run ATC like a
business, and he has certain employment rights. As long as we keep
publically saying "safety was never compromised", the company can't do a
thing...

Chip, ZTL

Chip --

This seems like a topic I'd be intereted in seeing Don Brown address in
one of his AVweb columns. Do you have any objection to my sending him a
copy of this thread?

-- David

--
David Rind