C-130 accident

[Jay Honeck]

http://alexisparkinn.com/c-130_accident.htm

The pictures of this remarkable crash were forwarded to me by a fellow who
is apparently in Iraq, judging by his assessment of the situation. (I've
seen these pix posted in other places, but not with the details he
provided.)

The C-130 in question made a night landing on a closed -- but not NOTAM'd as
such -- runway. The results are obvious.

It's amazing -- the NOTAM system in Iraq doesn't seem to work any better
than the one in the U.S. Although -- unless we live in Chicago -- we
usually don't worry about runways being ripped up in the middle of the
night.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

I would not bet on the plane being totaled. I have seen worse brought back
into service.

[Jose]

Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type? Even
highlighting it didn't improve the contrast - the only way I could
read it was to copy it to Notepad!

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
> Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type? Even
> highlighting it didn't improve the contrast - the only way I could read
> it was to copy it to Notepad!

Easily read. I'd call that light blue. Even the darker blue text is
easily readable.

[Jose]

> Easily read. I'd call that light blue. Even the darker blue text is easily readable.

Maybe on your machine, but not on mine, which is the whole point of
web design. It's not like the printed page, where what the designer
wants is what the reader gets. The web designer =must= take into
account the fact that the site will be viewed on a wide variety of
machines, which are set up differently for a myriad of good reasons.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Harlow]

> Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type?

There are some features which are just better left unused. Background
coloring is one IMHO.

When in doubt, look at ebay ;)

[Bob Moore]

Newps > wrote
>
> Jose wrote:
>> Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type? Even
>> highlighting it didn't improve the contrast - the only way I could read
>> it was to copy it to Notepad!
>
> Easily read. I'd call that light blue. Even the darker blue text is
> easily readable.

Almost unreadable on my screen.

Bob Moore

[Jay Honeck]

>> Easily read. I'd call that light blue. Even the darker blue text is
>> easily readable.
>
> Maybe on your machine, but not on mine, which is the whole point of web
> design. It's not like the printed page, where what the designer wants is
> what the reader gets. The web designer =must= take into account the fact
> that the site will be viewed on a wide variety of machines, which are set
> up differently for a myriad of good reasons.

Thanks for the input, Jose. It looks fine on my machine (obviously!) --
what kind of monitor are you using?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Flyin'8]

A lifelong buddy of mine has flown on that particular C130 many time
when he was on active duty. He said this plane was a MC-130H Combat
Talon II. He sent me the pictures of this last week in an email. He
said he had flown on that plane many time out of Hurlburt Field. He
said noone was killed but there were some injuries. He was trying to
find out if any of his military buddies were on board. Really hits
home when you are that close to it. Yikes. Kinda freaky ya know.






>http://alexisparkinn.com/c-130_accident.htm
>
>The pictures of this remarkable crash were forwarded to me by a fellow who
>is apparently in Iraq, judging by his assessment of the situation. (I've
>seen these pix posted in other places, but not with the details he
>provided.)
>
>The C-130 in question made a night landing on a closed -- but not NOTAM'd as
>such -- runway. The results are obvious.
>
>It's amazing -- the NOTAM system in Iraq doesn't seem to work any better
>than the one in the U.S. Although -- unless we live in Chicago -- we
>usually don't worry about runways being ripped up in the middle of the
>night.

Mike Alexander
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA

[Jose]

> Thanks for the input, Jose. It looks fine on my machine (obviously!) --
> what kind of monitor are you using?

Always glad to help. :) I've got a 21 inch Dell monitor, set for
1600x1200 dots, brightness of 50 and contrast of 100 (out of 100). I
face the corner of the room, there is a window just to my right which
faces South and looks out on snow (ah, tis the season). But even with
the shades drawn (which I shouln't have to do) it's dark on dark.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[steve.t]

Perhaps the problem is one of IE (internet Exploder) v. Opera v.
Netscape etc.

I've also noticed differences between releases of each of these
products.

Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Newps]

steve.t wrote:
> Perhaps the problem is one of IE (internet Exploder) v. Opera v.
> Netscape etc.

I brought up my IE 6 and it looks exactly like Netscape, what I normally
use. So if you're dumb enough to use IE it will look fine.

[T-Boy]

In article >,
says...
> > Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type?
>
> There are some features which are just better left unused. Background
> coloring is one IMHO.
>
> When in doubt, look at ebay ;)

Negative - *set* the background colour (don't rely on the user's default
- as it won't always be a default white).

Mine certainly isn't - I use an off white, as I find a pure white
background too bright. (This is the "Window" colour - in: Start,
Settings, Control Panel, Display... Appearence - scuse my sp).

I agree though, that it should be set to white - most other colours are
*very* difficult to go with. (eg. Black sites *can* work - but most
business sites it's a no go).

If you *don't* set a background to say white, I find when you visit
sites you get pretty ugly results (image borders are white, but the
'surrounding' page - um... isn't - it's my offwhite/cream colour. Looks
terrible. But it's not my fault.

--
Duncan

[Gene Seibel]

Looks good on mine too.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jose]

> (don't rely on the user's default
> - as it won't always be a default white).

If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
Reespect it.

At one point (with a different monitor) I was using a light shade of
"puke green" because the monitor flickered, and that color minimized
the eyestrain.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[T-Boy]

In article >,
says...
> > (don't rely on the user's default
> > - as it won't always be a default white).
>
> If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
> Reespect it.

It just doesn't work that way.

Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

No background colour set on that page. Probably looks just fine on most
PC's that use the default "Window" colour. But that won't hold true for
all.

Here's page two - background colour set to White.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_two.htm

And here's page three - what page one looks like on *my* PC...
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_three.htm


> At one point (with a different monitor) I was using a light shade of
> "puke green" because the monitor flickered, and that color minimized
> the eyestrain.

Well you set your "puke green" :) - on again, and try page_one.htm -
like it? Didn't think so.

For more eg's of good htm - one only needs to check out.. oh... cnn.com,
abc.com, microsoft.com, google.com - you name it - the background colour
is *set* (and usually white).

--
Duncan

[Jay Honeck]

> Always glad to help. :) I've got a 21 inch Dell monitor, set for
> 1600x1200 dots, brightness of 50 and contrast of 100 (out of 100). I face
> the corner of the room, there is a window just to my right which faces
> South and looks out on snow (ah, tis the season). But even with the
> shades drawn (which I shouln't have to do) it's dark on dark.

I don't understand the variability, but it exists.

On Mary's Dell monitor, it looks much darker than on either of my Dell
monitors at home or at the hotel. However, in all cases it's easily
readable.

It looks fine on my laptop, too.

Ya learn something new every day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Raul Ruiz]

rec.aviation.htmlprogramming

I love the diversity of conversation! =)

John Harlow wrote:
> > Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type?
>
> There are some features which are just better left unused.
Background
> coloring is one IMHO.
>
> When in doubt, look at ebay ;)

[Morgans]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > Jay, =why= do you use dark blue background with black type?
>
> There are some features which are just better left unused. Background
> coloring is one IMHO.


I'm with you.

I read the Usenet on an older machine, with a small monitor. Color
background is tough, and sometimes I just don't bother.

Everyone can read white with dark print. (if they can read )
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Newps" > wrote

>So if you're dumb enough to use IE

This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here. Why do you bother
with this type of thing? Does it make you feel better about yourself to run
other people down?

I was taught to live by the expression of, "If you don't have anything good
to say, don't say anything." Please
--
Jim in NC consider following that. It will make everyone around you feel
better.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

>>If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
>> Reespect it.
>
>
> It just doesn't work that way.
>
> Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm

You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.

Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Morgans" > wrote

Let me fix my sig line, to the right place.

"Newps" > wrote

>So if you're dumb enough to use IE

This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here. Why do you bother
with this type of thing? Does it make you feel better about yourself to
run
other people down?

I was taught to live by the expression of, "If you don't have anything good
to say, don't say anything." Please consider following that. It will make
everyone around you feel better.
--
Jim in NC
>
>
>

[T-Boy]

In article >,
says...
> >>If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
> >> Reespect it.
> >
> >
> > It just doesn't work that way.
> >
> > Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...
> >
> > http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm
>
> You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
> stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.
>
> Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
> situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

ok, agreed - bad example. But surely you get the point.

..jpg's are a must for many images - but they don't support tranparency.
So if you want to blend an image into the background - ya better set the
background.

Just pretend there's no text in that image if you like.

--
Duncan

[T-Boy]

In article >,
says...
> >>If the user's default is not white, it's not white for a reason.
> >> Reespect it.
> >
> >
> > It just doesn't work that way.
> >
> > Have a look at three pages I've whipped up...
> >
> > http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/duncanm4/page_one.htm
>
> You have posted a graphic whose content was text. Had the text-like
> stuff been actual text, it would have worked the way I claimed.
>
> Posting "a picture of text" is generally bad form (except for special
> situations like bot foils) for many reasons.

I've just found an example page for you - not the best, as it *nearly*
works (nearly gets away with it) - due to that there's basically no
pictures on the page. Check the Google button down the bottom though,
and the Newsletter links table at top right (even the Google adbar at
top for that matter).

http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/65.htm

(Interesting review on Microsoft Antispyware BTW - which is why I read
it).

--
Duncan

[Jay Honeck]

>>So if you're dumb enough to use IE
>
> This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here.

Talk about "railing against the machine." According to my website stats, a
mere 4% of the people hitting our site use a browser other than Internet
Explorer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <AYuEd.84506$k25.55352@attbi_s53>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> >>So if you're dumb enough to use IE
> >
> > This is a totally unnecessary opinion to express here.
>
> Talk about "railing against the machine." According to my website stats, a
> mere 4% of the people hitting our site use a browser other than Internet
> Explorer.

do you realize that some browsers can be configured to report being
a different browser? This is done because way too many websites are
designed by idiots who insist that the site be viewed only by IE.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Jose]

> .jpg's are a must for many images - but they don't support tranparency.
> So if you want to blend an image into the background - ya better set the
> background.

That's my issue - the idea that "blending an image into the
background" is the way web sites (should) work. With printed matter
you have full control, but web pages are not printed matter. Blending
an image into the background is usually just a nicety which should not
be =imposed on= (but rather, just suggested to) the browser.

> Just pretend there's no text in that image if you like.

I'm quite happy to see a little white frame around an image rather
than have it blend, so long as the main part of the page respects my
background color choice, which if made is surely made with good reason.

> I've just found an example page for you - not the best, as it *nearly*
> works (nearly gets away with it) - due to that there's basically no
> pictures on the page. Check the Google button down the bottom though,
> and the Newsletter links table at top right (even the Google adbar at
> top for that matter).
>
> http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/65.htm

I have no trouble whatsoever with the white around the google button.
In fact, it makes it stand out as a separate element rather than
be seamlessly and mysteriously integrated into the page, where its
function is less evident.

Web pages are not works of art, and are not supposed to be.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[steve.t]

I waited a while to post this.

Computers are tools or toys. In normal life, not everyone needs a
framing hammer or a ball-peen hammer and most don't know the difference
between one claw-type and another. The same holds true of computers and
their SCPs (System Control Program or O/S).

Most people are completely unaware that they have options as to
browsers. Some don't know that they don't have to use anything that M/S
produces.

While I might take a swipe at M/S from time to time, I realize that
most people want things to work right out of the box. If it weren't for
me being the IT guy here where I am, IE would be the browser used. But
because I was able to get Netscape to work with that clicky thing, and
Eudora met all their needs for email, those M/S products don't get
used.

Just wait until I finish configuring the Linux KDE system and get all
the Office products working under Linux...
Later,
Steve.T
PP ASEL/Instrument

[Martin Hotze]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:57:04 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Talk about "railing against the machine." According to my website stats, a
>mere 4% of the people hitting our site use a browser other than Internet
>Explorer.

this is only about 35% here on one of my sites.

#m

--
<http://www.terranova.net/content/images/goering.jpg>