SR 71, Shul's writing, and a question.

[Tina]

The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
it before. If and when you read it, I'd appreciate your thoughts about
this. how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
we'd never know.

I'd wonder the same thing about the U2.

Shul's writings follow


In April 1986, following an attack on American soldiers in a Berlin
disco, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's
terrorist camps in Libya. My duty was to fly over Libya and take
photos recording the damage our F-111s had inflicted. Qaddafi had
established a "line of death," a territorial marking across the Gulf
of Sidra, swearing to shoot down any intruder that crossed the
boundary. On the morning of April 15, I rocketed past the line at
2,125 mph. I was piloting the SR-71 spy plane, the world's fastest
jet, accompanied by Maj. Walter Watson, the aircraft's reconnaissance
systems officer (RSO). We had crossed into Libya and were approaching
our final turn over the bleak desert landscape when Walter informed me
that he was receiving missile launch signals. I quickly increased our
speed, calculating the time it would take for the weapons-most likely
SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air missiles capable of Mach 5-to reach our
altitude. I estimated that we could beat the rocket-powered missiles
to the turn and stayed our course, betting our lives on the plane's
performance.

After several agonizingly long seconds, we made the turn and blasted
toward the Mediterranean. "You might want to pull it back," Walter
suggested. It was then that I noticed I still had the throttles full
forward. The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our
Mach 3.2 limit. It was the fastest we would ever fly. I pulled the
throttles to idle just south of Sicily, but we still overran the
refueling tanker awaiting us over Gibraltar.

Scores of significant aircraft have been produced in the 100 years of
flight following the achievements of the Wright brothers, which we
celebrate in December. Aircraft such as the Boeing 707, the F-86 Sabre
Jet, and the P-51 Mustang are among the important machines that have
flown our skies. But the SR-71, also known as the Blackbird, stands
alone as a significant contributor to Cold War victory and as the
fastest plane ever-and only 93 Air Force pilots ever steered the
"sled," as we called our aircraft.

As inconceivable as it may sound, I once discarded the plane.
Literally. My first encounter with the SR-71 came when I was 10 years
old in the form of molded black plastic in a Revell kit. Cementing
together the long fuselage parts proved tricky, and my finished
product looked less than menacing. Glue, oozing from the seams,
discolored the black plastic. It seemed ungainly alongside the fighter
planes in my collection, and I threw it away.

Twenty-nine years later, I stood awe-struck in a Beale Air Force Base
hangar, staring at the very real SR-71 before me. I had applied to fly
the world's fastest jet and was receiving my first walk-around of our
nation's most prestigious aircraft. In my previous 13 years as an Air
Force fighter pilot, I had never seen an aircraft with such presence.
At 107 feet long, it appeared big, but far from ungainly.

Ironically, the plane was dripping, much like the misshapen model I
had assembled in my youth. Fuel was seeping through the joints,
raining down on the hangar floor. At Mach 3, the plane would expand
several inches because of the severe temperature, which could heat the
leading edge of the wing to 1,100 degrees. To prevent cracking,
expansion joints had been built into the plane. Sealant resembling
rubber glue covered the seams, but when the plane was subsonic, fuel
would leak through the joints.

The SR-71 was the brainchild of Kelly Johnson, the famed Lockheed
designer who created the P-38, the F-104 Starfighter, and the U-2.
After the Soviets shot down Gary Powers' U-2 in 1960, Johnson began to
develop an aircraft that would fly three miles higher and five times
faster than the spy plane-and still be capable of photographing your
license plate. However, flying at 2,000 mph would create intense heat
on the aircraft's skin. Lockheed engineers used a titanium alloy to
construct more than 90 percent of the SR-71, creating special tools
and manufacturing procedures to hand-build each of the 40 planes.
Special heat-resistant fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids that would
function at 85,000 feet and higher also had to be developed.

In 1962, the first Blackbird successfully flew, and in 1966, the same
year I graduated from high school, the Air Force began flying
operational SR-71 missions. I came to the program in 1983 with a
sterling record and a recommendation from my commander, completing the
weeklong interview and meeting Walter, my partner for the next four
years. He would ride four feet behind me, working all the cameras,
radios, and electronic jamming equipment. I joked that if we were ever
captured, he was the spy and I was just the driver. He told me to keep
the pointy end forward.

We trained for a year, flying out of Beale AFB in California, Kadena
Airbase in Okinawa, and RAF Mildenhall in England. On a typical
training mission, we would take off near Sacramento, refuel over
Nevada, accelerate into Montana, obtain high Mach over Colorado, turn
right over New Mexico, speed across the Los Angeles Basin, run up the
West Coast, turn right at Seattle, then return to Beale. Total flight
time: two hours and 40 minutes.

One day, high above Arizona, we were monitoring the radio traffic of
all the mortal airplanes below us. First, a Cessna pilot asked the air
traffic controllers to check his ground speed. "Ninety knots," ATC
replied. A twin Bonanza soon made the same request. "One-twenty on the
ground," was the reply. To our surprise, a navy F-18 came over the
radio with a ground speed check. I knew exactly what he was doing. Of
course, he had a ground speed indicator in his cockpit, but he wanted
to let all the bug-smashers in the valley know what real speed was.
"Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground," ATC responded.

The situation was too ripe. I heard the click of Walter's mike button
in the rear seat. In his most innocent voice, Walter startled the
controller by asking for a ground speed check from 81,000 feet,
clearly above controlled airspace. In a cool, professional voice, the
controller replied, "Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the
ground." We did not hear another transmission on that frequency all
the way to the coast.
The Blackbird always showed us something new, each aircraft possessing
its own unique personality. In time, we realized we were flying a
national treasure. When we taxied out of our revetments for takeoff,
people took notice. Traffic congregated near the airfield fences,
because everyone wanted to see and hear the mighty SR-71. You could
not be a part of this program and not come to love the airplane.
Slowly, she revealed her secrets to us as we earned her trust.

One moonless night, while flying a routine training mission over the
Pacific, I wondered what the sky would look like from 84,000 feet if
the cockpit lighting were dark. While heading home on a straight
course, I slowly turned down all of the lighting, reducing the glare
and revealing the night sky. Within seconds, I turned the lights back
up, fearful that the jet would know and somehow punish me. But my
desire to see the sky overruled my caution, and I dimmed the lighting
again. To my amazement, I saw a bright light outside my window. As my
eyes adjusted to the view, I realized that the brilliance was the
broad expanse of the Milky Way, now a gleaming stripe across the sky.
Where dark spaces in the sky had usually existed, there were now dense
clusters of sparkling stars. Shooting stars flashed across the canvas
every few seconds. It was like a fireworks display with no sound.

I knew I had to get my eyes back on the instruments, and reluctantly I
brought my attention back inside. To my surprise, with the cockpit
lighting still off, I could see every gauge, lit by starlight. In the
plane's mirrors, I could see the eerie shine of my gold spacesuit
incandescently illuminated in a celestial glow. I stole one last
glance out the window. Despite our speed, we seemed still before the
heavens, humbled in the radiance of a much greater power. For those
few moments, I felt a part of something far more significant than
anything we were doing in the plane. The sharp sound of Walt's voice
on the radio brought me back to the tasks at hand as I prepared for
our descent.

The SR-71 was an expensive aircraft to operate. The most significant
cost was tanker support, and in 1990, confronted with budget cutbacks,
the Air Force retired the SR-71. The Blackbird had outrun nearly 4,000
missiles, not once taking a scratch from enemy fire. On her final
flight, the Blackbird, destined for the Smithsonian National Air and
Space Museum, sped from Los Angeles to Washington in 64 minutes,
averaging 2,145 mph and setting four speed records.

The SR-71 served six presidents, protecting America for a quarter of a
century. Unbeknownst to most of the country, the plane flew over North
Vietnam, Red China, North Korea, the Middle East, South Africa, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran, Libya, and the Falkland Islands. On a weekly basis,
the SR-71 kept watch over every Soviet nuclear submarine and mobile
missile site, and all of their troop movements. It was a key factor in
winning the Cold War.

I am proud to say I flew about 500 hours in this aircraft. I knew her
well. She gave way to no plane, proudly dragging her sonic boom
through enemy backyards with great impunity. She defeated every
missile, outran every MiG, and always brought us home. In the first
100 years of manned flight, no aircraft was more remarkable.

With the Libyan coast fast approaching now, Walt asks me for the third
time if I think the jet will get to the speed and altitude we want in
time. I tell him yes. I know he is concerned. He is dealing with the
data; that's what engineers do, and I am glad he is. But I have my
hands on the stick and throttles and can feel the heart of a
thoroughbred, running now with the power and perfection she was
designed to possess. I also talk to her. Like the combat veteran she
is, the jet senses the target area and seems to prepare herself. For
the first time in two days, the inlet door closes flush and all
vibration is gone. We've become so used to the constant buzzing that
the jet sounds quiet now in comparison. The Mach correspondingly
increases slightly and the jet is flying in that confidently smooth
and steady style we have so often seen at these speeds. We reach our
target altitude and speed, with five miles to spare.

Entering the target area, in response to the jet's new-found vitality,
Walt says, "That's amazing S" and with my left hand pushing two
throttles farther forward, I think to myself that there is much they
don't teach in engineering school.

Out my left window, Libya looks like one huge sandbox. A featureless
brown terrain stretches all the way to the horizon. There is no sign
of any activity. Then Walt tells me that he is getting lots of
electronic signals, and they are not the friendly kind.

The jet is performing perfectly now, flying better than she has in
weeks. She seems to know where she is. She likes the high Mach, as we
penetrate deeper into Libyan airspace. Leaving the footprint of our
sonic boom across Benghazi, I sit motionless, with stilled hands on
throttles and the pitch control, my eyes glued to the gauges. Only the
Mach indicator is moving, steadily increasing in hundredths, in a
rhythmic consistency similar to the long distance runner who has
caught his second wind and picked up the pace. The jet was made for
this kind of performance and she wasn't about to let an errant inlet
door make her miss the show. With the power of forty locomotives, we
puncture the quiet African sky and continue farther south across a
bleak landscape.

Walt continues to update me with numerous reactions he sees on the DEF
panel. He is receiving missile tracking signals. With each mile we
traverse, every two seconds, I become more uncomfortable driving
deeper into this barren and hostile land.

I am glad the DEF panel is not in the front seat. It would be a big
distraction now, seeing the lights flashing. In contrast, my cockpit
is "quiet" as the jet purrs and relishes her new-found strength,
continuing to slowly accelerate. The spikes are full aft now, tucked
twenty-six inches deep into the nacelles. With all inlet doors tightly
shut, at 3.24 Mach, the J-58s are more like ramjets now, gulping
100,000 cubic feet of air per second. We are a roaring express now,
and as we roll through the enemy's backyard, I hope our speed
continues to defeat the missile radars below.

We are approaching a turn, and this is good. It will only make it more
difficult for any launched missile to solve the solution for hitting
our aircraft. I push the speed up at Walt's request. The jet does not
skip a beat, nothing fluctuates, and the cameras have a rock steady
platform.
Walt received missile launch signals. Before he can say anything else,
my left hand instinctively moves the throttles yet farther forward. My
eyes are glued to temperature gauges now, as I know the jet will
willingly go to speeds that can harm her. The temps are relatively
cool and from all the warm temps we've encountered thus far, this
surprises meS but then, it really doesn't surprise me. Mach 3.31 and
Walt are quiet for the moment.

I move my gloved finger across the small silver wheel on the autopilot
panel which controls the aircraft's pitch. With the deft feel known to
Swiss watchmakers, surgeons, and "dinosaurs" (old-time pilots who not
only fly an airplane but "feel it") I rotate the pitch wheel somewhere
between one-sixteenth and one-eighth inch, location a position which
yields the 500-foot-per-minute climb I desire. The jet raises her nose
one-sixth of a degree and knows I'll push her higher as she goes
faster. The Mach continues to rise, but during this segment of our
route, I am in no mood to pull throttles back.

Walt's voice pierces the quiet of my cockpit with the news of more
missile launch signals. The gravity of Walter's voice tells me that he
believes the signals to be a more valid threat than the others. Within
seconds he tells me to "push it up" and I firmly press both throttles
against their stops. For the next few seconds I will let the jet go as
fast as she wants.

A final turn is coming up and we both know that if we can hit that
turn at this speed, we most likely will defeat any missiles. We are
not there yet, though, and I'm wondering if Walt will call for a
defensive turn off our course. With no words spoken, I sense Walter is
thinking in concert with me about maintaining our programmed course.

To keep from worrying, I glance outside, wondering if I'll be able to
visually pick up a missile aimed at us. Odd are the thoughts that
wander through one's mind in times like these. I found myself
recalling the words of former SR-71 pilots who were fired upon while
flying missions over North Vietnam. They said the few errant missile
detonations they were able to observe from the cockpit looked like
implosions rather than explosions. This was due to the great speed at
which the jet was hurling away from the exploding missile. I see
nothing outside except the endless expanse of a steel blue sky and the
broad patch of tan earth far below.

I have only had my eyes out of the cockpit for seconds, but it seems
like many minutes since I have last checked the gauges inside.
Returning my attention inward, I glance first at the miles counter
telling me how many more to go until we can start our turn. Then I
note the Mach, and passing beyond 3.45, I realize that Walter and I
have attained new personal records. The Mach continues to increase.
The ride is incredibly smooth.

There seems to be a confirmed trust now, between me and the jet; she
will not hesitate to deliver whatever speed we need, and I can count
on no problems with the inlets. Walt and I are ultimately depending on
the jet now - more so than normal - and she seems to know it. The
cooler outside temperatures have awakened the spirit born into her
years ago, when men dedicated to excellence took the time and care to
build her well. With spikes and doors as tight as they can get we are
racing against the time it could take a missile to reach our altitude.
It is a race this jet will not let us lose. The Mach eases to 3.5 as
we crest 80,000 feet. We are a bullet now - except faster.

We hit the turn, and I feel some relief as our nose swings away from a
country we have seen quite enough of. Screaming past Tripoli, our
phenomenal speed continues to rise, and the screaming Sled pummels the
enemy one more time, laying down a parting sonic boom.
In seconds, we can see nothing but the expansive blue of the
Mediterranean. I realize that I still have my left hand full-forward
and we're continuing to rocket along in maximum afterburner. The TDI
now shows us Mach numbers not only new to our experience but flat out
scary. Walt says the DEF panel is now quiet and I know it is time to
reduce our incredible speed. I pull the throttles to the min 'burner
range and the jet still doesn't want to slow down. Normally, the Mach
would be affected immediately when making such a large throttle
movement. But for just a few moments, old 960 just sat out there at
the high Mach she seemed to love and, like the proud Sled she was,
only began to slow when we were well out of danger. I loved that jet.

[quietguy]

On Nov 17, 3:55 pm, Tina > wrote:
> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
> it before. If and when you read it, I'd appreciate your thoughts about
> this. how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
> been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
> we'd never know.
>
> I'd wonder the same thing about the U2.

Google "Lockheed YF-12A" and you'll find some material on the USAF
interceptor version. Not everyone believes that the Air Force was
serious about it; it may have been just a cover program for the SR-71,
the two-seat USAF version of the CIA's single-seat A-12.

As for an armed version of the U-2, google "sitting duck". Before its
first operational flight it was already clear that it was just a
matter of time before one got shot down; that's why the CIA started
the A-12 program in 1959, before the first of the two U-2 shoot-down
incidents.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
> it before.

It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.

Shul is an excellent writer, an excellent pilot, and not incidentally, an
excellent photographer. His book is well worth paying for.

> how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
> been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
> we'd never know.

SAC wanted to use it as a bomber, but that didn't work out. Ultimately it was
used only for reconnaissance, unarmed. It flew so high and fast that nobody
ever managed to shoot it down.

[xxx]

There's a lot more on the program management of the SR-71 and related
topics in Ben Rich's ("Kelly" Johnson's successor as head of Skunk
Works) memoir, "Skunk Works." Little, Brown 1994.


On Nov 17, 1:55 pm, Tina > wrote:
> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
> it before. If and when you read it, I'd appreciate your thoughts about
> this. how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
> been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
> we'd never know.
>
> I'd wonder the same thing about the U2.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
>> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
>> it before.
>
> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.
>
> Shul is an excellent writer, an excellent pilot, and not incidentally,
> an excellent photographer. His book is well worth paying for.
>
>> how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
>> been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
>> we'd never know.
>
> SAC wanted to use it as a bomber, but that didn't work out.
> Ultimately it was used only for reconnaissance, unarmed. It flew so
> high and fast that nobody ever managed to shoot it down.
>

Wht, nobody got any electrons to lock onto your MSFS version?



That's amazing.


Bertie

[Tina]

The prior writer, Mx, noted

>
> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.


One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
code. There are some general statements in what I've copied a couple
of paragraphs below that will suggest when one is getting close to a
limit.

Shul's signed limited edition book sells for something over $400,
there are less expensive versions available. It's unlikely Mx owns any
version, since we know from other of his writings he has very little
income.



re copyright:



One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to
reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in
sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).
One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use."
Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the
doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions
over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the
copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in
determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or
notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the
source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining
permission.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in news:897d3265-8e73-4b92-90eb-
:

> The prior writer, Mx, noted
>
>>
>> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.
>
>
> One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
> professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
> code. There are some general statements in what I've copied a couple
> of paragraphs below that will suggest when one is getting close to a
> limit.


What something else he's wrong about!


I'm stunned, I tell you, stunned!





Bertie>

[Tina]

Sorry, guys, I could have checked this myself before asking. Some
early versions of the airplane were in fact configured with a weapon's
bay. You'll find this writing at aerospacewed.org. (It also suggests
another of Mx's statements is in error).

The first units built were 15 A-12 strike models configured for both
reconnaissance and attack missions. These single-seat aircraft were
delivered to the CIA beginning in 1962, although one was modified for
use as a two-seat trainer and two more gained a second seat for a
launch officer to operate a D-21 unmanned drone. These early aircraft
could carry a centerline pod containing a 1-megaton nuclear bomb or
the D-21 recon drone armed with cameras, infrared sensors, and other
equipment. Three new two-seat aircraft were also built as YF-12A high-
speed interceptors, but these were primarily employed as research
aircraft in conjunction with NASA. The A-12 aircraft were flown by the
Air Force on behalf of the CIA until the more advanced SR-71, a
dedicated reconnaissance model, became fully operational in 1968. The
SR-71 featured an improved airframe, increased fuel capacity, and
better aerodynamic performance but lacked the weapons bays of earlier
models. The SR-71 was also equipped with in-flight refueling
capability to compensate for the design's high fuel consumption and to
extend its range.




On Nov 17, 6:21 pm, quietguy > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 3:55 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
> > flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
> > it before. If and when you read it, I'd appreciate your thoughts about
> > this. how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
> > been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
> > we'd never know.
>
> > I'd wonder the same thing about the U2.
>
> Google "Lockheed YF-12A" and you'll find some material on the USAF
> interceptor version. Not everyone believes that the Air Force was
> serious about it; it may have been just a cover program for the SR-71,
> the two-seat USAF version of the CIA's single-seat A-12.
>
> As for an armed version of the U-2, google "sitting duck". Before its
> first operational flight it was already clear that it was just a
> matter of time before one got shot down; that's why the CIA started
> the A-12 program in 1959, before the first of the two U-2 shoot-down
> incidents.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
> professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
> code.

The applicability of 17 USC 107 is questionable; and I don't see how the other
sections apply at all.

In what capacity do you do this professionally? When I've done it
professionally, we've always spelled it copyright, since copywrite means
something entirely different, unrelated to IP, and confusing the two raises a
lot of legal issues.

> Shul's signed limited edition book sells for something over $400,
> there are less expensive versions available. It's unlikely Mx owns any
> version, since we know from other of his writings he has very little
> income.

I have a hardcover copy of the book. I don't remember if it's signed and I
don't have it in front of me. I don't think proceeds from the book have made
Shul rich, and further eroding its commercial value by quoting massive
excerpts from it in an archived, public, worldwide forum hardly seems ethical.
Next thing you know, someone will be posting scans of the (excellent) photos
in the book.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
>> professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
>> code.
>
> The applicability of 17 USC 107 is questionable; and I don't see how
> the other sections apply at all.


Of course you don;t.

>
> I have a hardcover copy of the book. I don't remember if it's signed
> and I don't have it in front of me


Hock it for some galloises wannabe boi?


Bertie

[Tina]

I mostly publish in the professional literature, but choose to not
offer a CV here. There's ample evidence you have difficulty
understanding even fairly simple writings based on opinions you've
expressed here, so the bet to make is you'd really misrepresent what
you might read in peer reviewed journals.




On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
> > professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
> > code.
>
> The applicability of 17 USC 107 is questionable; and I don't see how the other
> sections apply at all.
>
> In what capacity do you do this professionally? When I've done it
> professionally, we've always spelled it copyright, since copywrite means
> something entirely different, unrelated to IP, and confusing the two raises a
> lot of legal issues.
>
> > Shul's signed limited edition book sells for something over $400,
> > there are less expensive versions available. It's unlikely Mx owns any
> > version, since we know from other of his writings he has very little
> > income.
>
> I have a hardcover copy of the book. I don't remember if it's signed and I
> don't have it in front of me. I don't think proceeds from the book have made
> Shul rich, and further eroding its commercial value by quoting massive
> excerpts from it in an archived, public, worldwide forum hardly seems ethical.
> Next thing you know, someone will be posting scans of the (excellent) photos
> in the book.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> I mostly publish in the professional literature, but choose to not
> offer a CV here.



I don't know why not. It'd be a great way of meeting new and interesting
people!


There's ample evidence you have difficulty
> understanding even fairly simple writings based on opinions you've
> expressed here, so the bet to make is you'd really misrepresent what
> you might read in peer reviewed journals.


Nah!


Anthony?


Bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Tina > wrote in news:897d3265-8e73-4b92-90eb-
:

> The prior writer, Mx, noted
>
>>
>> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.
>
>
> One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
> professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
> code. There are some general statements in what I've copied a couple
> of paragraphs below that will suggest when one is getting close to a
> limit.
>
> Shul's signed limited edition book sells for something over $400,
> there are less expensive versions available. It's unlikely Mx owns any
> version, since we know from other of his writings he has very little
> income.
>
>
>
> re copyright:
>
>
>
> One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to
> reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
> phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in
> sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).
> One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use."
> Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the
> doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions
> over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the
> copyright law.
>
> Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
> reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
> criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and
> research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in
> determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
>
> the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
> commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
> the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
> amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
> copyrighted work as a whole; and
>
> the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work.
> The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and
> not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or
> notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the
> source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining
> permission.
>
>
>

Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the 1998 Stockton
airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:23:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote in
>:

>Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the 1998 Stockton
>airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!


Today a copy will cost as much as $887.66:


http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/0929823087/ref=nosim/bookfinderc06-21
Amazon.fr
[France] Hardcover, ISBN 0929823087
Publisher: Lickle Pub Inc, 1994
Very good condition Lickle Publications, 1994, hardcover.
Expédié de New York et London sous 6 à 18 jours ouvrés.;
Habituellement bateaux en 1-2 jours d'affaires $887.66

to:

http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ1093875QQtgZinfo

http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=MW1AraGoHasZAJkkQDfh3GZ.R9Y_7383849567_1:9:292

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=270187820230
$125.00

[Alric Knebel[_3_]]

Right, sure, Vagina, work it boi-girl, work it.

Fruit cake.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:55:05 -0800 (PST), Tina wrote:

> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
> it before. If and when you read it, I'd appreciate your thoughts about
> this. how is it such an airplane had been resticted to recon? Had any
> been configured as a first strike weapon? I suppose some may have and
> we'd never know.
>
> I'd wonder the same thing about the U2.
>
> Shul's writings follow
>
> In April 1986, following an attack on American soldiers in a Berlin
> disco, President Reagan ordered the bombing of Muammar Qaddafi's
> terrorist camps in Libya. My duty was to fly over Libya and take
> photos recording the damage our F-111s had inflicted. Qaddafi had
> established a "line of death," a territorial marking across the Gulf
> of Sidra, swearing to shoot down any intruder that crossed the
> boundary. On the morning of April 15, I rocketed past the line at
> 2,125 mph. I was piloting the SR-71 spy plane, the world's fastest
> jet, accompanied by Maj. Walter Watson, the aircraft's reconnaissance
> systems officer (RSO). We had crossed into Libya and were approaching
> our final turn over the bleak desert landscape when Walter informed me
> that he was receiving missile launch signals. I quickly increased our
> speed, calculating the time it would take for the weapons-most likely
> SA-2 and SA-4 surface-to-air missiles capable of Mach 5-to reach our
> altitude. I estimated that we could beat the rocket-powered missiles
> to the turn and stayed our course, betting our lives on the plane's
> performance.
>
> After several agonizingly long seconds, we made the turn and blasted
> toward the Mediterranean. "You might want to pull it back," Walter
> suggested. It was then that I noticed I still had the throttles full
> forward. The plane was flying a mile every 1.6 seconds, well above our
> Mach 3.2 limit. It was the fastest we would ever fly. I pulled the
> throttles to idle just south of Sicily, but we still overran the
> refueling tanker awaiting us over Gibraltar.
>
> Scores of significant aircraft have been produced in the 100 years of
> flight following the achievements of the Wright brothers, which we
> celebrate in December. Aircraft such as the Boeing 707, the F-86 Sabre
> Jet, and the P-51 Mustang are among the important machines that have
> flown our skies. But the SR-71, also known as the Blackbird, stands
> alone as a significant contributor to Cold War victory and as the
> fastest plane ever-and only 93 Air Force pilots ever steered the
> "sled," as we called our aircraft.
>
> As inconceivable as it may sound, I once discarded the plane.
> Literally. My first encounter with the SR-71 came when I was 10 years
> old in the form of molded black plastic in a Revell kit. Cementing
> together the long fuselage parts proved tricky, and my finished
> product looked less than menacing. Glue, oozing from the seams,
> discolored the black plastic. It seemed ungainly alongside the fighter
> planes in my collection, and I threw it away.
>
> Twenty-nine years later, I stood awe-struck in a Beale Air Force Base
> hangar, staring at the very real SR-71 before me. I had applied to fly
> the world's fastest jet and was receiving my first walk-around of our
> nation's most prestigious aircraft. In my previous 13 years as an Air
> Force fighter pilot, I had never seen an aircraft with such presence.
> At 107 feet long, it appeared big, but far from ungainly.
>
> Ironically, the plane was dripping, much like the misshapen model I
> had assembled in my youth. Fuel was seeping through the joints,
> raining down on the hangar floor. At Mach 3, the plane would expand
> several inches because of the severe temperature, which could heat the
> leading edge of the wing to 1,100 degrees. To prevent cracking,
> expansion joints had been built into the plane. Sealant resembling
> rubber glue covered the seams, but when the plane was subsonic, fuel
> would leak through the joints.
>
> The SR-71 was the brainchild of Kelly Johnson, the famed Lockheed
> designer who created the P-38, the F-104 Starfighter, and the U-2.
> After the Soviets shot down Gary Powers' U-2 in 1960, Johnson began to
> develop an aircraft that would fly three miles higher and five times
> faster than the spy plane-and still be capable of photographing your
> license plate. However, flying at 2,000 mph would create intense heat
> on the aircraft's skin. Lockheed engineers used a titanium alloy to
> construct more than 90 percent of the SR-71, creating special tools
> and manufacturing procedures to hand-build each of the 40 planes.
> Special heat-resistant fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids that would
> function at 85,000 feet and higher also had to be developed.
>
> In 1962, the first Blackbird successfully flew, and in 1966, the same
> year I graduated from high school, the Air Force began flying
> operational SR-71 missions. I came to the program in 1983 with a
> sterling record and a recommendation from my commander, completing the
> weeklong interview and meeting Walter, my partner for the next four
> years. He would ride four feet behind me, working all the cameras,
> radios, and electronic jamming equipment. I joked that if we were ever
> captured, he was the spy and I was just the driver. He told me to keep
> the pointy end forward.
>
> We trained for a year, flying out of Beale AFB in California, Kadena
> Airbase in Okinawa, and RAF Mildenhall in England. On a typical
> training mission, we would take off near Sacramento, refuel over
> Nevada, accelerate into Montana, obtain high Mach over Colorado, turn
> right over New Mexico, speed across the Los Angeles Basin, run up the
> West Coast, turn right at Seattle, then return to Beale. Total flight
> time: two hours and 40 minutes.
>
> One day, high above Arizona, we were monitoring the radio traffic of
> all the mortal airplanes below us. First, a Cessna pilot asked the air
> traffic controllers to check his ground speed. "Ninety knots," ATC
> replied. A twin Bonanza soon made the same request. "One-twenty on the
> ground," was the reply. To our surprise, a navy F-18 came over the
> radio with a ground speed check. I knew exactly what he was doing. Of
> course, he had a ground speed indicator in his cockpit, but he wanted
> to let all the bug-smashers in the valley know what real speed was.
> "Dusty 52, we show you at 620 on the ground," ATC responded.
>
> The situation was too ripe. I heard the click of Walter's mike button
> in the rear seat. In his most innocent voice, Walter startled the
> controller by asking for a ground speed check from 81,000 feet,
> clearly above controlled airspace. In a cool, professional voice, the
> controller replied, "Aspen 20, I show you at 1,982 knots on the
> ground." We did not hear another transmission on that frequency all
> the way to the coast.
> The Blackbird always showed us something new, each aircraft possessing
> its own unique personality. In time, we realized we were flying a
> national treasure. When we taxied out of our revetments for takeoff,
> people took notice. Traffic congregated near the airfield fences,
> because everyone wanted to see and hear the mighty SR-71. You could
> not be a part of this program and not come to love the airplane.
> Slowly, she revealed her secrets to us as we earned her trust.
>
> One moonless night, while flying a routine training mission over the
> Pacific, I wondered what the sky would look like from 84,000 feet if
> the cockpit lighting were dark. While heading home on a straight
> course, I slowly turned down all of the lighting, reducing the glare
> and revealing the night sky. Within seconds, I turned the lights back
> up, fearful that the jet would know and somehow punish me. But my
> desire to see the sky overruled my caution, and I dimmed the lighting
> again. To my amazement, I saw a bright light outside my window. As my
> eyes adjusted to the view, I realized that the brilliance was the
> broad expanse of the Milky Way, now a gleaming stripe across the sky.
> Where dark spaces in the sky had usually existed, there were now dense
> clusters of sparkling stars. Shooting stars flashed across the canvas
> every few seconds. It was like a fireworks display with no sound.
>
> I knew I had to get my eyes back on the instruments, and reluctantly I
> brought my attention back inside. To my surprise, with the cockpit
> lighting still off, I could see every gauge, lit by starlight. In the
> plane's mirrors, I could see the eerie shine of my gold spacesuit
> incandescently illuminated in a celestial glow. I stole one last
> glance out the window. Despite our speed, we seemed still before the
> heavens, humbled in the radiance of a much greater power. For those
> few moments, I felt a part of something far more significant than
> anything we were doing in the plane. The sharp sound of Walt's voice
> on the radio brought me back to the tasks at hand as I prepared for
> our descent.
>
> The SR-71 was an expensive aircraft to operate. The most significant
> cost was tanker support, and in 1990, confronted with budget cutbacks,
> the Air Force retired the SR-71. The Blackbird had outrun nearly 4,000
> missiles, not once taking a scratch from enemy fire. On her final
> flight, the Blackbird, destined for the Smithsonian National Air and
> Space Museum, sped from Los Angeles to Washington in 64 minutes,
> averaging 2,145 mph and setting four speed records.
>
> The SR-71 served six presidents, protecting America for a quarter of a
> century. Unbeknownst to most of the country, the plane flew over North
> Vietnam, Red China, North Korea, the Middle East, South Africa, Cuba,
> Nicaragua, Iran, Libya, and the Falkland Islands. On a weekly basis,
> the SR-71 kept watch over every Soviet nuclear submarine and mobile
> missile site, and all of their troop movements. It was a key factor in
> winning the Cold War.
>
> I am proud to say I flew about 500 hours in this aircraft. I knew her
> well. She gave way to no plane, proudly dragging her sonic boom
> through enemy backyards with great impunity. She defeated every
> missile, outran every MiG, and always brought us home. In the first
> 100 years of manned flight, no aircraft was more remarkable.
>
> With the Libyan coast fast approaching now, Walt asks me for the third
> time if I think the jet will get to the speed and altitude we want in
> time. I tell him yes. I know he is concerned. He is dealing with the
> data; that's what engineers do, and I am glad he is. But I have my
> hands on the stick and throttles and can feel the heart of a
> thoroughbred, running now with the power and perfection she was
> designed to possess. I also talk to her. Like the combat veteran she
> is, the jet senses the target area and seems to prepare herself. For
> the first time in two days, the inlet door closes flush and all
> vibration is gone. We've become so used to the constant buzzing that
> the jet sounds quiet now in comparison. The Mach correspondingly
> increases slightly and the jet is flying in that confidently smooth
> and steady style we have so often seen at these speeds. We reach our
> target altitude and speed, with five miles to spare.
>
> Entering the target area, in response to the jet's new-found vitality,
> Walt says, "That's amazing S" and with my left hand pushing two
> throttles farther forward, I think to myself that there is much they
> don't teach in engineering school.
>
> Out my left window, Libya looks like one huge sandbox. A featureless
> brown terrain stretches all the way to the horizon. There is no sign
> of any activity. Then Walt tells me that he is getting lots of
> electronic signals, and they are not the friendly kind.
>
> The jet is performing perfectly now, flying better than she has in
> weeks. She seems to know where she is. She likes the high Mach, as we
> penetrate deeper into Libyan airspace. Leaving the footprint of our
> sonic boom across Benghazi, I sit motionless, with stilled hands on
> throttles and the pitch control, my eyes glued to the gauges. Only the
> Mach indicator is moving, steadily increasing in hundredths, in a
> rhythmic consistency similar to the long distance runner who has
> caught his second wind and picked up the pace. The jet was made for
> this kind of performance and she wasn't about to let an errant inlet
> door make her miss the show. With the power of forty locomotives, we
> puncture the quiet African sky and continue farther south across a
> bleak landscape.
>
> Walt continues to update me with numerous reactions he sees on the DEF
> panel. He is receiving missile tracking signals. With each mile we
> traverse, every two seconds, I become more uncomfortable driving
> deeper into this barren and hostile land.
>
> I am glad the DEF panel is not in the front seat. It would be a big
> distraction now, seeing the lights flashing. In contrast, my cockpit
> is "quiet" as the jet purrs and relishes her new-found strength,
> continuing to slowly accelerate. The spikes are full aft now, tucked
> twenty-six inches deep into the nacelles. With all inlet doors tightly
> shut, at 3.24 Mach, the J-58s are more like ramjets now, gulping
> 100,000 cubic feet of air per second. We are a roaring express now,
> and as we roll through the enemy's backyard, I hope our speed
> continues to defeat the missile radars below.
>
> We are approaching a turn, and this is good. It will only make it more
> difficult for any launched missile to solve the solution for hitting
> our aircraft. I push the speed up at Walt's request. The jet does not
> skip a beat, nothing fluctuates, and the cameras have a rock steady
> platform.
> Walt received missile launch signals. Before he can say anything else,
> my left hand instinctively moves the throttles yet farther forward. My
> eyes are glued to temperature gauges now, as I know the jet will
> willingly go to speeds that can harm her. The temps are relatively
> cool and from all the warm temps we've encountered thus far, this
> surprises meS but then, it really doesn't surprise me. Mach 3.31 and
> Walt are quiet for the moment.
>
> I move my gloved finger across the small silver wheel on the autopilot
> panel which controls the aircraft's pitch. With the deft feel known to
> Swiss watchmakers, surgeons, and "dinosaurs" (old-time pilots who not
> only fly an airplane but "feel it") I rotate the pitch wheel somewhere
> between one-sixteenth and one-eighth inch, location a position which
> yields the 500-foot-per-minute climb I desire. The jet raises her nose
> one-sixth of a degree and knows I'll push her higher as she goes
> faster. The Mach continues to rise, but during this segment of our
> route, I am in no mood to pull throttles back.
>
> Walt's voice pierces the quiet of my cockpit with the news of more
> missile launch signals. The gravity of Walter's voice tells me that he
> believes the signals to be a more valid threat than the others. Within
> seconds he tells me to "push it up" and I firmly press both throttles
> against their stops. For the next few seconds I will let the jet go as
> fast as she wants.
>
> A final turn is coming up and we both know that if we can hit that
> turn at this speed, we most likely will defeat any missiles. We are
> not there yet, though, and I'm wondering if Walt will call for a
> defensive turn off our course. With no words spoken, I sense Walter is
> thinking in concert with me about maintaining our programmed course.
>
> To keep from worrying, I glance outside, wondering if I'll be able to
> visually pick up a missile aimed at us. Odd are the thoughts that
> wander through one's mind in times like these. I found myself
> recalling the words of former SR-71 pilots who were fired upon while
> flying missions over North Vietnam. They said the few errant missile
> detonations they were able to observe from the cockpit looked like
> implosions rather than explosions. This was due to the great speed at
> which the jet was hurling away from the exploding missile. I see
> nothing outside except the endless expanse of a steel blue sky and the
> broad patch of tan earth far below.
>
> I have only had my eyes out of the cockpit for seconds, but it seems
> like many minutes since I have last checked the gauges inside.
> Returning my attention inward, I glance first at the miles counter
> telling me how many more to go until we can start our turn. Then I
> note the Mach, and passing beyond 3.45, I realize that Walter and I
> have attained new personal records. The Mach continues to increase.
> The ride is incredibly smooth.
>
> There seems to be a confirmed trust now, between me and the jet; she
> will not hesitate to deliver whatever speed we need, and I can count
> on no problems with the inlets. Walt and I are ultimately depending on
> the jet now - more so than normal - and she seems to know it. The
> cooler outside temperatures have awakened the spirit born into her
> years ago, when men dedicated to excellence took the time and care to
> build her well. With spikes and doors as tight as they can get we are
> racing against the time it could take a missile to reach our altitude.
> It is a race this jet will not let us lose. The Mach eases to 3.5 as
> we crest 80,000 feet. We are a bullet now - except faster.
>
> We hit the turn, and I feel some relief as our nose swings away from a
> country we have seen quite enough of. Screaming past Tripoli, our
> phenomenal speed continues to rise, and the screaming Sled pummels the
> enemy one more time, laying down a parting sonic boom.
> In seconds, we can see nothing but the expansive blue of the
> Mediterranean. I realize that I still have my left hand full-forward
> and we're continuing to rocket along in maximum afterburner. The TDI
> now shows us Mach numbers not only new to our experience but flat out
> scary. Walt says the DEF panel is now quiet and I know it is time to
> reduce our incredible speed. I pull the throttles to the min 'burner
> range and the jet still doesn't want to slow down. Normally, the Mach
> would be affected immediately when making such a large throttle
> movement. But for just a few moments, old 960 just sat out there at
> the high Mach she seemed to love and, like the proud Sled she was,
> only began to slow when we were well out of danger. I loved that jet.


--
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Alric Knebel[_3_]]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:26:15 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Tina writes:
>
>> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
>> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
>> it before.
>
> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.
YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?
--
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Alric Knebel[_3_]]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:20:15 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Tina writes:
>
>> One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
>> professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
>> code.
>
> The applicability of 17 USC 107 is questionable; and I don't see how the other
> sections apply at all.
>
> In what capacity do you do this professionally? When I've done it
> professionally, we've always spelled it copyright, since copywrite means
> something entirely different, unrelated to IP, and confusing the two raises a
> lot of legal issues.
>
>> Shul's signed limited edition book sells for something over $400,
>> there are less expensive versions available. It's unlikely Mx owns any
>> version, since we know from other of his writings he has very little
>> income.
>
> I have a hardcover copy of the book. I don't remember if it's signed and I
> don't have it in front of me. I don't think proceeds from the book have made
> Shul rich, and further eroding its commercial value by quoting massive
> excerpts from it in an archived, public, worldwide forum hardly seems ethical.
> Next thing you know, someone will be posting scans of the (excellent) photos
> in the book.

Of course you don't what a surprise. Like all those other books you have
read and written.

Prove it. Fancy pants.
--
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Alric Knebel ]> wrote in news:10ldouc3j1tlv
:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:26:15 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Tina writes:
>>
>>> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
>>> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
>>> it before.
>>
>> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.
> YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?

Depends, who's vagina?


Bertie

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:23:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:

> Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the 1998 Stockton
> airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I won't pay TWO Nickels for a book from a man who calls himself "Vagina"
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Jay Honeck]

> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
> flying the SR-71.

<Huge snip of great stuff>

I hope you paid him to use that quotation, cuz he wants over $400 for
his book. You just used about twenty bucks worth...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:23:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro wrote:
>
>> Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the
>> 1998 Stockton
>> airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> I won't pay TWO Nickels for a book from a man who calls himself
> "Vagina"

So Bush's autobiography will be out as well, eh?

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Alric Knebel wrote:
> Right, sure, Vagina, work it boi-girl, work it.
>
> Fruit cake.
>

Couldn't you find a longer post against which to make a stupid one-line
reply with no trimming. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope you paid him to use that quotation, cuz he wants over $400 for
> his book. You just used about twenty bucks worth...

Whoops, sorry -- I'm behind the curve in this thread, as I see this
has already been discussed.

I met Schul at the Reno Air Races in '04. He was selling his book
whilst sitting at a card table, and Mary and I briefly considered
adding his book to our library.

It was rude of me, I know, but when he told me the price I burst out
laughing. I seriously thought he was joking. It was immediately
obvious that he *wasn't* joking. Needless to say, we didn't hit it
off after that.

Personally, I think anyone trying to sell a book for $400 is bonkers
-- but if ya can get it, it's not a bad gig.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:sRX%i.859$2n4.24750
@news1.epix.net:

> Alric Knebel wrote:
>> Right, sure, Vagina, work it boi-girl, work it.
>>
>> Fruit cake.
>>
>
> Couldn't you find a longer post against which to make a stupid one-line
> reply with no trimming. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
>

wow,


Whooosh..


Do you even feel it as it flies between your ears?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:65fa2467-b75d-4824-bce3-
:

>> I hope you paid him to use that quotation, cuz he wants over $400 for
>> his book. You just used about twenty bucks worth...
>
> Whoops, sorry -- I'm behind the curve in this thread, =


Now there;s a surpirse.

MAybe you could get a usenet simulator and practie.


Bertie

[Tina]

Jay, have you seen some of the textbook prices at colleges lately?
Well over 100 is common. Why, you can almost buy a wingful of fuel for
the price of a book (I offer that as a way for you to think about
costs when son goes off to school).

Since your Inn has been overbooked the last bunch of weekends, you can
start saving for the books by increasing the rack rate a little!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
...
>
> Personally, I think anyone trying to sell a book for $400 is bonkers
> -- but if ya can get it, it's not a bad gig.
>

And if ya can get it you're not bonkers.

[Marty Shapiro]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:23:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the 1998 Stockton
>>airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!
>
>
> Today a copy will cost as much as $887.66:
>
>
> http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/0929823087/ref=nosim/bookfinderc0
> 6-21
> Amazon.fr
> [France] Hardcover, ISBN 0929823087
> Publisher: Lickle Pub Inc, 1994
> Very good condition Lickle Publications, 1994, hardcover.
> Expédié de New York et London sous 6 à 18 jours ouvrés.;
> Habituellement bateaux en 1-2 jours d'affaires $887.66
>
> to:
>
> http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ1093875QQtgZinfo
>
> http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=MW1AraGoHasZAJkkQDfh3G
> Z.R9Y_7383849567_1:9:292
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=2701878
> 20230
> $125.00
>

Anyone who is paying $887.66 is living proof that P. T. Barnum was
right! I just did a Google search on "Sled Driver" and the first hit took
me to Brian's web page where the book is going for $427 + shipping. Add $25
if you want it autographed.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> I mostly publish in the professional literature, but choose to not
> offer a CV here. There's ample evidence you have difficulty
> understanding even fairly simple writings based on opinions you've
> expressed here, so the bet to make is you'd really misrepresent what
> you might read in peer reviewed journals.

The U.S. Code isn't a peer-reviewed journal.

[Mxsmanic]

Alric Knebel writes:

> YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?

I assume you mean protected by copyright. Individual words cannot be
protected by copyright.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> I mostly publish in the professional literature, but choose to not
>> offer a CV here. There's ample evidence you have difficulty
>> understanding even fairly simple writings based on opinions you've
>> expressed here, so the bet to make is you'd really misrepresent what
>> you might read in peer reviewed journals.
>
> The U.S. Code isn't a peer-reviewed journal.
>

Wrong again moron.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Alric Knebel writes:
>
>> YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?
>
> I assume you mean protected by copyright. Individual words cannot be
> protected by copyright.



How about if you spell 'em fjunny, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Personally, I think anyone trying to sell a book for $400 is bonkers
> -- but if ya can get it, it's not a bad gig.

See http://www.taschen.com.

[Tina]

It's clear you misread the code as well -- or perhaps you have never
read it (and of course it is not published as a joiurnal, but it also
is subject to peer review). In my profession we need more than a
casual knowledge of those chapters.

The other truth is, you probably hold more copyrights than I do --
5800 of them for this newsgroup alone. Those writings, however, are
not peer reviewed because I think most here would be insulted to be
called your peer.

As to the relative worth of our writings? To quote another frequent
poster, Bertie:

"hahahahahahhahahahahahahahahha"

Sorry, casual reader, if you inhaled coffee.





On Nov 18, 11:01 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > I mostly publish in the professional literature, but choose to not
> > offer a CV here. There's ample evidence you have difficulty
> > understanding even fairly simple writings based on opinions you've
> > expressed here, so the bet to make is you'd really misrepresent what
> > you might read in peer reviewed journals.
>
> The U.S. Code isn't a peer-reviewed journal.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Personally, I think anyone trying to sell a book for $400 is bonkers
>> -- but if ya can get it, it's not a bad gig.
>
> See http://www.taschen.com.



Soemthing else you can't afford.

Like gum!




Bertie

[The Loverly Vagina]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:07:56 -0500, Alric Knebel wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:26:15 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Tina writes:
>>
>>> The following text is from Brian Shul's Sled Driver, his memoir of
>>> flying the SR-71. It's a great read, and most of us has seen parts of
>>> it before.
>>
>> It's protected by copyright, too, which you might try to keep in mind.
> YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?

it's not fukken copywritted Alldick but it's a proud family name. I've been
called pussy all my life and I sorta like. Everybudy hates you now Alldick
so why don't you jus disappear.
--
http://tinyurl.com/zd6fy

[The Loverly Vagina]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:09:48 -0500, Alric Knebel wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:20:15 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Tina writes:
>>
>>> One may quote copywritten work (been there, and do that
>>> professionally) so long as it complies with Sections 107-118 of the
>>> code.
>>
>> The applicability of 17 USC 107 is questionable; and I don't see how the other
>> sections apply at all.
>>
>> In what capacity do you do this professionally? When I've done it
>> professionally, we've always spelled it copyright, since copywrite means
>> something entirely different, unrelated to IP, and confusing the two raises a
>> lot of legal issues.
>>
>>> Shul's signed limited edition book sells for something over $400,
>>> there are less expensive versions available. It's unlikely Mx owns any
>>> version, since we know from other of his writings he has very little
>>> income.
>>
>> I have a hardcover copy of the book. I don't remember if it's signed and I
>> don't have it in front of me. I don't think proceeds from the book have made
>> Shul rich, and further eroding its commercial value by quoting massive
>> excerpts from it in an archived, public, worldwide forum hardly seems ethical.
>> Next thing you know, someone will be posting scans of the (excellent) photos
>> in the book.
>
> Of course you don't what a surprise. Like all those other books you have
> read and written.
>
> Prove it. Fancy pants.

How can i? I suppose just because you have good taste in books means you
have the rite to snub mine. but both my books were pretty good what you'd
call in in the rite frame of mine, cult classics.

--
http://tinyurl.com/zd6fy

[Alric Knebel[_3_]]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:02:24 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Alric Knebel writes:
>
>> YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?
>
> I assume you mean protected by copyright. Individual words cannot be
> protected by copyright.

How about this one?

**** off.
--
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Darkwing]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Jay Honeck writes:
>>
>>> Personally, I think anyone trying to sell a book for $400 is bonkers
>>> -- but if ya can get it, it's not a bad gig.
>>
>> See http://www.taschen.com.
>
>
>
> Soemthing else you can't afford.
>
> Like gum!
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

....or a clue.

[WJRFlyBoy]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:16:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> I won't pay TWO Nickels for a book from a man who calls himself
>> "Vagina"
>
> So Bush's autobiography will be out as well, eh?
>
> Bertie

oops, got my posters confused. Sorry Shul.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

[Loverly Vagina]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:21:19 -0500, Alric Knebel wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:02:24 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> Alric Knebel writes:
>>
>>> YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?
>>
>> I assume you mean protected by copyright. Individual words cannot be
>> protected by copyright.
>
> How about this one?
>
> **** off.

Sir AllDick, I believe, with belief, in truth, that is two (words).

Idiot.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmailATyahoo.com> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Jay Honeck writes:
>>>
>>>> Personally, I think anyone trying to sell a book for $400 is bonkers
>>>> -- but if ya can get it, it's not a bad gig.
>>>
>>> See http://www.taschen.com.
>>
>>
>>
>> Soemthing else you can't afford.
>>
>> Like gum!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> ...or a clue.
>
>

Snort!

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:16:54 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> I won't pay TWO Nickels for a book from a man who calls himself
>>> "Vagina"
>>
>> So Bush's autobiography will be out as well, eh?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> oops, got my posters confused. Sorry Shul.



K


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Pardon me for saying, but aren't they all lovely?


bertie

[Alric Knebel[_3_]]

Loverly Vagina wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:21:19 -0500, Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:02:24 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alric Knebel writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>YOU think I don't know that? Hey, K00k, is Vagina copywrtited too?
>>>
>>>I assume you mean protected by copyright. Individual words cannot be
>>>protected by copyright.
>>
>>How about this one?
>>
>>**** off.
>
>
> Sir AllDick, I believe, with belief, in truth, that is two (words).
>
> Idiot.

Wait a second. What the hell are YOU doing home? Oh, that's right.
It's Sunday night. The mall closes early on Sunday.

--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Mxsmanic]

Alric Knebel writes:

> How about this one?
>
> **** off.

I count two. Neither can be copyrighted.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Pardon me for saying, but aren't they all lovely?
If you hang out with the right class of women, they are.

I hear from my brother-in-law doctor, that there are some really, really
sick ones that he has treated, that are not all that lovely, to look at,
smell, and I would imagine, feel. :-(

Uggg!
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, have you seen some of the textbook prices at colleges lately?
> Well over 100 is common. Why, you can almost buy a wingful of fuel for
> the price of a book (I offer that as a way for you to think about
> costs when son goes off to school).

Good point. It always amazes me that I can buy the autobiography of
Neil Armstrong for $6.98 at Barnes & Noble, or the story of the Enola
Gay for $9.97, but a book on Pre-Calculus is over $100.

To me, the value of these books is obviously inverted, but I suppose
that's my bias towards a liberal arts degree showing...

> Since your Inn has been overbooked the last bunch of weekends, you can
> start saving for the books by increasing the rack rate a little!

We NEVER overbook. Only bottom-feeding, scum-sucking big-box chains
pull that kind of crap. Of course, in return, we actually expect
people to show up -- and charge the crap out of them when they don't.
But that's the trade off...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tina]

"Overbooked" was a poor choice of a word, wait listed would have been
better phrase.

The point about pricing is valid, though. If you consistantly are
having requests for 30% more rooms than you physically have, adjusting
the price upward would be profitable. Airlines base prices on demand,
you offer an aviation themed facility. . .

Some academic institutions are actually addressing the cost of text
books. Unless the field is very dynamic, basic texts should be used
for quite a few years. Dynamic fields and grad schools often use
journal articles rather than books -- those fields are moving targets.




On Nov 18, 8:52 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Jay, have you seen some of the textbook prices at colleges lately?
> > Well over 100 is common. Why, you can almost buy a wingful of fuel for
> > the price of a book (I offer that as a way for you to think about
> > costs when son goes off to school).
>
> Good point. It always amazes me that I can buy the autobiography of
> Neil Armstrong for $6.98 at Barnes & Noble, or the story of the Enola
> Gay for $9.97, but a book on Pre-Calculus is over $100.
>
> To me, the value of these books is obviously inverted, but I suppose
> that's my bias towards a liberal arts degree showing...
>
> > Since your Inn has been overbooked the last bunch of weekends, you can
> > start saving for the books by increasing the rack rate a little!
>
> We NEVER overbook. Only bottom-feeding, scum-sucking big-box chains
> pull that kind of crap. Of course, in return, we actually expect
> people to show up -- and charge the crap out of them when they don't.
> But that's the trade off...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[w]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:13:10 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

> Alric Knebel writes:
>
>> How about this one?
>>
>> **** off.
>
> I count two. Neither can be copyrighted.

nyuk. Yep, he's a dunce alright.

[Alric Knebel[_3_]]

w wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:13:10 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>
>>Alric Knebel writes:
>>
>>
>>>How about this one?
>>>
>>>**** off.
>>
>>I count two. Neither can be copyrighted.
>
>
> nyuk. Yep, he's a dunce alright.

So . . . you called in to work tonight, or did you get the night off? I
guessed earlier that you'd probably have the night off. Nyukles
exponential!

I'm going to read for a while, then go to bed.
--
_________________
Alric Knebel

http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com

[Ron]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:37:47 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:23:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the 1998 Stockton
>>>airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!
>>
>>
>> Today a copy will cost as much as $887.66:
>>
>>
>> http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/0929823087/ref=nosim/bookfinderc0
>> 6-21
>> Amazon.fr
>> [France] Hardcover, ISBN 0929823087
>> Publisher: Lickle Pub Inc, 1994
>> Very good condition Lickle Publications, 1994, hardcover.
>> Expédié de New York et London sous 6 à 18 jours ouvrés.;
>> Habituellement bateaux en 1-2 jours d'affaires $887.66
>>
>> to:
>>
>> http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ1093875QQtgZinfo
>>
>> http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=MW1AraGoHasZAJkkQDfh3G
>> Z.R9Y_7383849567_1:9:292
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=2701878
>> 20230
>> $125.00
>>
>
> Anyone who is paying $887.66 is living proof that P. T. Barnum was
>right! I just did a Google search on "Sled Driver" and the first hit took
>me to Brian's web page where the book is going for $427 + shipping. Add $25
>if you want it autographed.


$295.00 on Amazon.com

Ron Kelley

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:52:17 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck > wrote:

> > Jay, have you seen some of the textbook prices at colleges lately?
> > Well over 100 is common. Why, you can almost buy a wingful of fuel for
> > the price of a book (I offer that as a way for you to think about
> > costs when son goes off to school).
>
> Good point. It always amazes me that I can buy the autobiography of
> Neil Armstrong for $6.98 at Barnes & Noble, or the story of the Enola
> Gay for $9.97, but a book on Pre-Calculus is over $100.

Well...volume has a bit to do with it. Probably been a lot fewer copies of the
pre-calc book published. What's more, the same outlets for new textbooks
usually sell used textbooks, too, which further harms the market. Mass-market
used books have hit-and-miss sales, but for used textbooks, they know where the
books will sell (the profs ID the books for the classes), they know when the
books will sell (in the weeks prior to class start), and they know where the
buyers will be looking for the books (the campus bookstore). Even if the
textbooks sold for $10 new, there'd be people looking for used ones instead.

Finally, for whatever reason, textbooks have a limited life. The Neil Armstrong
book will sell forever, as will the Enola Gay book, but five years from now, the
textbook will be supplanted by something new. After which, unlike "normal"
books, its used value is near-zero. (Obligatory aviation content) It's like
when you go to a used bookstore and find the 1994 FAR/AIM for sale. You're not
too likely to buy it.....

Ron Wanttaja

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:7F50j.116$Ud5.69
@newsfe02.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Pardon me for saying, but aren't they all lovely?
> If you hang out with the right class of women, they are.
>
> I hear from my brother-in-law doctor, that there are some really, really
> sick ones that he has treated, that are not all that lovely, to look at,
> smell, and I would imagine, feel.


Yow! Thanks for that!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Alric Knebel writes:
>
>> How about this one?
>>
>> **** off.
>
> I count two. Neither can be copyrighted.
>

In your world it would be the smae as trying to copyright "hello"


Bertie

[Marty Shapiro]

Ron > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 14:37:47 GMT, Marty Shapiro
> > wrote:
>
>>Larry Dighera > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:23:41 GMT, Marty Shapiro
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>Wow, $400! I bought the third edition from Brian at the 1998
>>>>Stockton airshow for $40. Even got his autograph!
>>>
>>>
>>> Today a copy will cost as much as $887.66:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/0929823087/ref=nosim/bookfinder
>>> c0 6-21
>>> Amazon.fr
>>> [France] Hardcover, ISBN 0929823087
>>> Publisher: Lickle Pub Inc, 1994
>>> Very good condition Lickle Publications, 1994, hardcover.
>>> Expédié de New York et London sous 6 à 18 jours ouvrés.;
>>> Habituellement bateaux en 1-2 jours d'affaires $887.66
>>>
>>> to:
>>>
>>> http://product.half.ebay.com/_W0QQprZ1093875QQtgZinfo
>>>
>>> http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?ac=sl&st=sl&qi=MW1AraGoHasZAJkkQDfh
>>> 3G Z.R9Y_7383849567_1:9:292
>>>
>>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=378&item=27018
>>> 78 20230
>>> $125.00
>>>
>>
>> Anyone who is paying $887.66 is living proof that P. T.
>> Barnum was
>>right! I just did a Google search on "Sled Driver" and the first hit
>>took me to Brian's web page where the book is going for $427 +
>>shipping. Add $25 if you want it autographed.
>
>
> $295.00 on Amazon.com
>
> Ron Kelley
>

Its hard to tell from the Amazon listings, but a few of the five
listed appear to be the 1991 first edition and are taking advantage of the
price of the commemorative edition. Only the last one listed, new for $495,
appears to be the commemorative edition. All I know for sure is that
the third edition, bought directly from Brian Shul at the Stockton Airshow
on October 3 of 1998, cost me $40.00 (tax included) and he autographed it
at no charge.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Dave S]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
It's like
> when you go to a used bookstore and find the 1994 FAR/AIM for sale. You're not
> too likely to buy it.....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I have a 1969 hard cover AIM. Its about 1/2 an inch thick. No, its not
for sale.

Dave

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Ron Wanttaja > said:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:52:17 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> Good point. It always amazes me that I can buy the autobiography of
>> Neil Armstrong for $6.98 at Barnes & Noble, or the story of the Enola
>> Gay for $9.97, but a book on Pre-Calculus is over $100.
>
>Finally, for whatever reason, textbooks have a limited life. The Neil Armstrong

Because they're inventing all sorts of new calculus stuff all the time?

I just happened to be in the co-hort at engineering school where the
previous generation used imperial units and we used metric units, so we
couldn't buy used texts for just about all of our classes. Man, that
sucked - tuition was only $600 for 4 months, but textbooks were nearly
$400. And textbooks weren't covered by my scholarship.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Sheridan: "Well, as answers go, short, to the point, utterly useless and
totally consistent, what I've come to expect from a Vorlon."
Kosh: "Good."

[Kyle Boatright]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, Ron Wanttaja > said:
>>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:52:17 -0800 (PST), Jay Honeck >
>>wrote:
>>> Good point. It always amazes me that I can buy the autobiography of
>>> Neil Armstrong for $6.98 at Barnes & Noble, or the story of the Enola
>>> Gay for $9.97, but a book on Pre-Calculus is over $100.
>>
>>Finally, for whatever reason, textbooks have a limited life. The Neil
>>Armstrong
>
> Because they're inventing all sorts of new calculus stuff all the time?

I invented lots of new calculus when I was an engineering student.
Unfortunately, none of it met peer review. ;-)

Seriously, if they didn't intentionally obsolete calculus books every 3-4
years, generations of college engineering students would pass the books down
and down and down, and neither the prof's or the publishers would make any
money.

Which ain't a bad thing, but if you're a professor or publisher and can
shove a new edition into the pipeline every few years, it is almost as good
as printing money, because all of the math and engineering profs are going
to require their students to use the latest, greatest. And besides, their
colleagues are the ones profiting from the venture anyway...

KB

[Dave[_5_]]

On Nov 18, 9:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
> "Overbooked" was a poor choice of a word, wait listed would have been
> better phrase.
>
> The point about pricing is valid, though. If you consistantly are
> having requests for 30% more rooms than you physically have, adjusting
> the price upward would be profitable. Airlines base prices on demand,
> you offer an aviation themed facility. . .
>
> Some academic institutions are actually addressing the cost of text
> books. Unless the field is very dynamic, basic texts should be used
> for quite a few years. Dynamic fields and grad schools often use
> journal articles rather than books -- those fields are moving targets.


It's been a loooog time, but in my day you usually had a choice of new
or used textbooks - and could sell 'em back to the bookstore after
taking the course. It did cut down the cost. I remember thinking that
the cost of some of those books (new) was out of sight even then (more
like $30 - $40).

David Johnson

David Johnson

[Tina]

There's a minor trend among some of us to make required readings
avaiable on line rather than as hard copy text. The fact is, it's
easier to do that in graduate level courses since the readings are
often journal articles or unpublished or yet to be published works.
The more dynamic the field, the more likely this is how written
material will be offered.

Since basics don't change that much, they are often reduced to an
expensive text. There's reason to hope, at least in the sciences, both
hard and soft, our students will be looking at laptop screens more
than they do textbooks.






On Nov 20, 7:18 pm, Dave > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:06 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > "Overbooked" was a poor choice of a word, wait listed would have been
> > better phrase.
>
> > The point about pricing is valid, though. If you consistantly are
> > having requests for 30% more rooms than you physically have, adjusting
> > the price upward would be profitable. Airlines base prices on demand,
> > you offer an aviation themed facility. . .
>
> > Some academic institutions are actually addressing the cost of text
> > books. Unless the field is very dynamic, basic texts should be used
> > for quite a few years. Dynamic fields and grad schools often use
> > journal articles rather than books -- those fields are moving targets.
>
> It's been a loooog time, but in my day you usually had a choice of new
> or used textbooks - and could sell 'em back to the bookstore after
> taking the course. It did cut down the cost. I remember thinking that
> the cost of some of those books (new) was out of sight even then (more
> like $30 - $40).
>
> David Johnson
>
> David Johnson