Errors accessing FAA's Pilotweb

[Mxsmanic]

Is anyone else getting SSL security errors when trying to access the FAA Web
site's Pilotweb pages? I tried to look up TFRs today and got an error message
saying the certificate issuer was unknown. One URL that does this is:

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/center.html

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Your difficulty accessing the pilot web site is probably related to the fact
that you're not a pilot. Not that it matters, but it looks like you got
around to paying your bill.

[[email protected]]

Viperdoc > wrote:
> Your difficulty accessing the pilot web site is probably related to the fact
> that you're not a pilot. Not that it matters, but it looks like you got
> around to paying your bill.

It seems our computer (among other things) expert doesn't understand
that the US government doesn't pay money to the recognized signature
authorities.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Is anyone else getting SSL security errors when trying to access the
> FAA Web site's Pilotweb pages?

Nope. prolly cuz I am a pilot and yuo are not.

Bertie

[Jon]

On Jan 30, 9:46*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Your difficulty accessing the pilot web site is probably related to the fact
> that you're not a pilot.

Technology can be difficult. Then again, it probably just a 'nut
behind the wheel error' ;)

Works fine for this non-pilot:

---------
ARTCC Notices, TFRs and Special Notice Page

The following options will allow a user to extract Temporary Flight
Restrictions (TFRs) from the Flight Data Center (FDC) NOTAMs [...]
---------

[remainder of page snipped for brevity]

> [..]

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Your difficulty accessing the pilot web site is probably related to the fact
> that you're not a pilot.

No, it's not that.

[Mxsmanic]

Apparently the certifying authority didn't provide a certificate for inclusion
in Firefox 3. I've been unable to locate the issuer of the certificate to get
a clean copy, but since my access to TFRs and NOTAMs is not a security issue,
I've just added the certificate to my list. It wasn't a problem with Firefox
2, so I assume previous versions had the certificate.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

"Mxsmanic" > Apparently the certifying authority didn't provide a
certificate for inclusion
> in Firefox 3. I've been unable to locate the issuer of the certificate to
> get
> a clean copy, but since my access to TFRs and NOTAMs is not a security
> issue,
> I've just added the certificate to my list. It wasn't a problem with
> Firefox
> 2, so I assume previous versions had the certificate

Why would anyone actually give a **** about this? The world was better off
when you didn't pay your bill.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 30, 4:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is anyone else getting SSL security errors when trying to access the FAA Web
> site's Pilotweb pages? *I tried to look up TFRs today and got an error message
> saying the certificate issuer was unknown. *One URL that does this is:
>
> https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/center.html

I'm sorry, but that is just **too** funny!!! Why are you interested
in TFRs?

-Robert

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Apparently the certifying authority didn't provide a certificate for inclusion
> in Firefox 3. I've been unable to locate the issuer of the certificate to get
> a clean copy, but since my access to TFRs and NOTAMs is not a security issue,
> I've just added the certificate to my list. It wasn't a problem with Firefox
> 2, so I assume previous versions had the certificate.

If you were to have looked at the certificate, you would have found
that it was issued by USNS by the organizational unit NAIMES.

USNS is the United States NOTAM System.

NAIMES is the National Airspace System Aeronautic Information Management
Enterprise System.

To put it simply, the certificate is self-signed by the FAA.

No wonder you can't get any computer consulting gigs if you couldn't
figure that out.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Darkwing]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 30, 4:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is anyone else getting SSL security errors when trying to access the FAA
> Web
> site's Pilotweb pages? I tried to look up TFRs today and got an error
> message
> saying the certificate issuer was unknown. One URL that does this is:
>
> https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/center.html
>
>I'm sorry, but that is just **too** funny!!! Why are you interested
>in TFRs?
>
>-Robert

It's called insanity. Don't try to explain it.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Why would anyone actually give a **** about this?

A pilot trying to get information on TFRs and NOTAMs would certainly care
about it.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

> A pilot trying to get information on TFRs and NOTAMs would certainly care
> about it.

A real pilot or any other normal rational individual could care less about
you and your computer, since you are not a pilot and have no need to know
about TFRs.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If you were to have looked at the certificate, you would have found
> that it was issued by USNS by the organizational unit NAIMES.

I did, and that was the name on the certificate.

> USNS is the United States NOTAM System.
>
> NAIMES is the National Airspace System Aeronautic Information Management
> Enterprise System.
>
> To put it simply, the certificate is self-signed by the FAA.

Actually, you don't know who created the certificate. Anyone can create a
certificate with any name. That's why you need to get the certificate from a
trusted source.

However, since these sites are not critical for me, I just added the
certificate, even though it wasn't possible to verify its origin.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

No one cares what you look up, since you don't fly.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I'm sorry, but that is just **too** funny!!! Why are you interested
> in TFRs?

I check them before flights, but in this case I wanted to see if there was a
TFR for that volcano in Alaska (and there is).

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> I check them before flights, but in this case I wanted to see if there was
> a
> TFR for that volcano in Alaska (and there is).

There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the surface to the
flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are all imaginary
and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world except you and the
people you annoy by wasting bandwith.

You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop polluting
this and other NG's.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If you were to have looked at the certificate, you would have found
>> that it was issued by USNS by the organizational unit NAIMES.
>
> I did, and that was the name on the certificate.
>
>> USNS is the United States NOTAM System.
>>
>> NAIMES is the National Airspace System Aeronautic Information Management
>> Enterprise System.
>>
>> To put it simply, the certificate is self-signed by the FAA.
>
> Actually, you don't know who created the certificate. Anyone can create a
> certificate with any name. That's why you need to get the certificate from a
> trusted source.

You mean like the FAA?

> However, since these sites are not critical for me, I just added the
> certificate, even though it wasn't possible to verify its origin.

What has "not critical for me" to do with the issue and if you want
to know how to verify its origin you need to hire a computer professional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> A real pilot or any other normal rational individual could care less about
> you and your computer, since you are not a pilot and have no need to know
> about TFRs.

My computer is not the one he needs to access to learn about TFRs and NOTAMs.
The one he needs to access is the one with the problem.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You mean like the FAA?

Yes, but I couldn't find a source for the certificate on the FAA site.

> What has "not critical for me" to do with the issue ...

I explained why I made an exception for this certificate, something that
normally isn't a good idea.

> ... and if you want to know how to verify its origin you need
> to hire a computer professional.

Not at all. You can do that without anyone's help.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the surface to the
> flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are all imaginary
> and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world except you and the
> people you annoy by wasting bandwith.

The essence of simulation is taken from the real world.

> You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop polluting
> this and other NG's.

My question was legitimate for any pilot. Only the replies have wasted
bandwidth. I have yet to see a single useful reply.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Anthony:

No one cares about you, your computer, or your computer problems. This is
because you're not a pilot and only fly a game (among other reasons).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> A real pilot or any other normal rational individual could care less
>> about you and your computer, since you are not a pilot and have no
>> need to know about TFRs.
>
> My computer is not the one he needs to access to learn about TFRs and
> NOTAMs. The one he needs to access is the one with the problem.
>

You're a moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the surface
>> to the flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are
>> all imaginary and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world
>> except you and the people you annoy by wasting bandwith.
>
> The essence of simulation is taken from the real world.
>
>> You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop
>> polluting this and other NG's.
>
> My question was legitimate for any pilot. Only the replies have
> wasted bandwidth. I have yet to see a single useful reply.
>

You're not a pilot, though. You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Since you're not a pilot, you're not worthy of a response. The essence of
simulation is that it is not the real world- for you it is simply a mental
game, with no consequences. Others (real pilots) may use it to improve
skills or practice scenarios that would be dangerous or prohibitively
expensive, but since you do not fly, the point is moot, and your posts are
not worthy of a response.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

You wouldn't understand- it is a secret shared only by real pilots.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Anthony, it's no wonder you were banned from the Leica forums.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You mean like the FAA?
>
> Yes, but I couldn't find a source for the certificate on the FAA site.
>
>> What has "not critical for me" to do with the issue ...
>
> I explained why I made an exception for this certificate, something that
> normally isn't a good idea.
>
>> ... and if you want to know how to verify its origin you need
>> to hire a computer professional.
>
> Not at all. You can do that without anyone's help.
>



You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the surface to
>> the
>> flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are all
>> imaginary
>> and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world except you and the
>> people you annoy by wasting bandwith.
>
> The essence of simulation is taken from the real world.
>
>> You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop polluting
>> this and other NG's.
>
> My question was legitimate for any pilot. Only the replies have wasted
> bandwidth. I have yet to see a single useful reply.

Then why are you still here, dumb ass?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>> There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the surface
>>> to the
>>> flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are all
>>> imaginary
>>> and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world except you and
>>> the people you annoy by wasting bandwith.
>>
>> The essence of simulation is taken from the real world.
>>
>>> You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop
>>> polluting this and other NG's.
>>
>> My question was legitimate for any pilot. Only the replies have
>> wasted bandwidth. I have yet to see a single useful reply.
>
> Then why are you still here, dumb ass?


Pretty much the same reason you are, maxie, he likes being abused


Bertie
>
>
>
>

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :
>
>>
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Viperdoc writes:
>>>
>>>> There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the surface
>>>> to the
>>>> flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are all
>>>> imaginary
>>>> and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world except you and
>>>> the people you annoy by wasting bandwith.
>>>
>>> The essence of simulation is taken from the real world.
>>>
>>>> You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop
>>>> polluting this and other NG's.
>>>
>>> My question was legitimate for any pilot. Only the replies have
>>> wasted bandwidth. I have yet to see a single useful reply.
>>
>> Then why are you still here, dumb ass?
>
>
> Pretty much the same reason you are, maxie, he likes being abused
>
>
> Bertie

I don't come here to be amused dumb ass, I come hear to READ about aviation.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Maxwell wrote:
>
> I don't come here to be amused dumb ass, I come hear to READ about aviation.
>

Could'a fooled me...

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> No one cares about you, your computer, or your computer problems.

You care a great deal about me. You're preoccupied by me. You cannot resist
replying to my posts even when you have nothing useful to say. It looks a bit
unhealthy, actually--you do realize that, don't you?

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Since you're not a pilot, you're not worthy of a response.

So why have you responded to me nine times in this thread alone so far?

> The essence of
> simulation is that it is not the real world- for you it is simply a mental
> game, with no consequences. Others (real pilots) may use it to improve
> skills or practice scenarios that would be dangerous or prohibitively
> expensive, but since you do not fly, the point is moot, and your posts are
> not worthy of a response.

See above.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Since you're not a pilot, you're not worthy of a response.
>
> So why have you responded to me nine times in this thread alone so far?
>
>> The essence of
>> simulation is that it is not the real world- for you it is simply a
>> mental
>> game, with no consequences. Others (real pilots) may use it to improve
>> skills or practice scenarios that would be dangerous or prohibitively
>> expensive, but since you do not fly, the point is moot, and your posts
>> are
>> not worthy of a response.
>
> See above.

Probably for the same reason kids burn ants with magnifying glasses.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> I don't come here to be amused dumb ass, I come hear to READ about
>> aviation.
>
> Could'a fooled me...
>

Then like many, you haven't been paying attention.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> A real pilot or any other normal rational individual could care less about
>> you and your computer, since you are not a pilot and have no need to know
>> about TFRs.
>
> My computer is not the one he needs to access to learn about TFRs and NOTAMs.
> The one he needs to access is the one with the problem.

Illogical babble; are you on drugs?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You mean like the FAA?
>
> Yes, but I couldn't find a source for the certificate on the FAA site.

That you would even attempt to says you are not very computer astute.

>> What has "not critical for me" to do with the issue ...
>
> I explained why I made an exception for this certificate, something that
> normally isn't a good idea.

Why not, you have neither any money nor an identity anyone would want to
steal.

>> ... and if you want to know how to verify its origin you need
>> to hire a computer professional.
>
> Not at all. You can do that without anyone's help.

True, I can do that, but you can't, or you wouldn't have made the
original post.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Viperdoc writes:
>>>>
>>>>> There could be ice, thunderstorms, and volcanic ash from the
>>>>> surface to the
>>>>> flight levels, but it doesn't matter, since your flights are all
>>>>> imaginary
>>>>> and don't mean anything to anyone in the entire world except you
>>>>> and the people you annoy by wasting bandwith.
>>>>
>>>> The essence of simulation is taken from the real world.
>>>>
>>>>> You need to start thinking about being mentally green and stop
>>>>> polluting this and other NG's.
>>>>
>>>> My question was legitimate for any pilot. Only the replies have
>>>> wasted bandwidth. I have yet to see a single useful reply.
>>>
>>> Then why are you still here, dumb ass?
>>
>>
>> Pretty much the same reason you are, maxie, he likes being abused
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I don't come here to be amused dumb ass, I come hear to READ about
> aviation.


Actually you come here to be peed on, remember?

Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> I don't come here to be amused dumb ass, I come hear to READ about
>>> aviation.
>>
>> Could'a fooled me...
>>
>
> Then like many, you haven't been paying attention.
>

Why, you learn to read, did you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Since you're not a pilot, you're not worthy of a response.
>
> So why have you responded to me nine times in this thread alone so
> far?
>
>> The essence of
>> simulation is that it is not the real world- for you it is simply a
>> mental game, with no consequences. Others (real pilots) may use it to
>> improve skills or practice scenarios that would be dangerous or
>> prohibitively expensive, but since you do not fly, the point is moot,
>> and your posts are not worthy of a response.
>
> See above.
>

you're an idiot



Bertie

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

"
>
> You care a great deal about me. You're preoccupied by me. You cannot
> resist
> replying to my posts even when you have nothing useful to say. It looks a
> bit
> unhealthy, actually--you do realize that, don't you?

I actually care very little about you, other than to point out to the world
that you are an idiot.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

If you don't like the answers, you should go elsewhere. See above.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Thank you for your concern regarding my health, but it is quite good, and I
appreciate your interest.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> If you don't like the answers, you should go elsewhere.

I'm still waiting for answers.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> If you don't like the answers, you should go elsewhere.
>
> I'm still waiting for answers.

And that's how you will spend the remainder of your life.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And that's how you will spend the remainder of your life.

No, I've worked around this problem now. I didn't expect any useful answers
here but I figured it wouldn't hurt to try, as there are always new pilots
visiting who aren't members of the treehouse club.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> No, I've worked around this problem now. I didn't expect any useful
> answers here

So don't try, if you didn't expect to get any useful answers.\

> but I figured it wouldn't hurt to try,

YES it DOES hurt to try. Every time you show up asking stupid questions, it
hurts the group. Does it not bother you, that this used to be one of the
most posted to groups on usenet, and now, more than a year after you showed
up, there are only a few posts per day, and most of them are to fuss at you?

Is that all you want out of life? For people to fuss at you? That is all
you get here. Always. The ones that did not leave from you directly, left
because they could not deal with all the people fussing about you being
here.

This newsgroup nearly being dead is on you. You are intruisive. You are
like cancer, eating on good cells, causing them to die away. Directly, or
indirectly, you have to admit it. It is all on you.

> as there are always new pilots visiting who aren't members of the
> treehouse club.

Yes, that is true. Yes, they may visit, but they will not stay, once they
see that this group is such a mess, with your disruptive presence. Can you
think of one new pilot that has stayed, except to give you grief? None.
Nobody will ever stay.

Don't stay, if you really like piloting. You kill pilot's love for talking
about it, here.

You are a murderer.

You killed the group, either directly, or indirectly.

Leave, and find some other place to talk about flying if you really do like
it so much.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> No, I've worked around this problem now. I didn't expect any useful
> answers
> here but I figured it wouldn't hurt to try, as there are always new pilots
> visiting who aren't members of the treehouse club.

Anthony, you'll never be a member of the treehouse or any other club, and
it's not because of the members, but simply your own attitude, which is why
you were rejected from the Leica forums. Of course, you'll never understand
this, but you might ask the question as to why you have not been able to
succeed in finding or holding a job.

Instead of blaming others, you might look at yourself as part of the
problem.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

As usual, you answered your own question- no one else has difficulty getting
access to the information- even though you claim to be a computer expert.
Why didn't you try to work out the problem first before posting your own
personal issues, even though you're not a pilot and have no need for the
information or access to the weather information?

[Jon]

On Feb 1, 9:25*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> As usual, you answered your own question- no one else has difficulty getting
> access to the information- even though you claim to be a computer expert.
> Why didn't you try to work out the problem first before posting your own
> personal issues, even though you're not a pilot and have no need for the
> information or access to the weather information?

It took less time to click the two or three buttons and the exception
was added, and up popped the information.

Much ado about nothing, made into something, by no one in particular.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And that's how you will spend the remainder of your life.
>
> No, I've worked around this problem now.

Nope, the base problem still exists and will likely exist for the
remainder of your life.

Viewing a FAA web site was never a "problem".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> So don't try, if you didn't expect to get any useful answers.

Read the entire sentence, not just the first part.

> YES it DOES hurt to try. Every time you show up asking stupid questions, it
> hurts the group.

Asking about access to an official FAA site is hardly a stupid question. It
was followed by a long series of stupid replies, though--but that's not my
problem.

> Does it not bother you, that this used to be one of the
> most posted to groups on usenet, and now, more than a year after you showed
> up, there are only a few posts per day, and most of them are to fuss at you?

I've learned over the years that there is no cure for stupidity. You cannot
educate stupid people into being smarter. It's frustrating but I've accepted
that there's nothing that I can do about it. The kiddies will always whine.

> Is that all you want out of life? For people to fuss at you?

I'd like intelligent conversation, but that requires people who are
intelligent, and they are rare.

> That is all you get here. Always.

No, I do get intelligent replies from time to time.

> The ones that did not leave from you directly, left
> because they could not deal with all the people fussing about you being
> here.

Well, that's hardly my problem. Maybe if they grew up and started discussing
aviation again, nobody would be leaving.

> This newsgroup nearly being dead is on you. You are intruisive. You are
> like cancer, eating on good cells, causing them to die away. Directly, or
> indirectly, you have to admit it. It is all on you.

I had to smile reading this. Do you ever wonder where the real problem might
be?

> Yes, that is true. Yes, they may visit, but they will not stay, once they
> see that this group is such a mess, with your disruptive presence.

If you look at this thread, it's pretty easy to see where the disruption comes
from, and it's not me.

> Can you think of one new pilot that has stayed, except to give you grief?

I don't keep records.

> Don't stay, if you really like piloting. You kill pilot's love for talking
> about it, here.

It's not me. I don't know why I bother to say it since it has no effect on
you, but I'm addicted to the truth, I guess.

> You are a murderer.
>
> You killed the group, either directly, or indirectly.
>
> Leave, and find some other place to talk about flying if you really do like
> it so much.

Some people here would do well to read 14 CFR 67.307(a)(1), if they are
pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> ... you'll never be a member of the treehouse or any other club ...

That's fine. I'm not interested in little boys.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Viewing a FAA web site was never a "problem".

It is with Firefox 3.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> It took less time to click the two or three buttons and the exception
> was added, and up popped the information.

It's the careful thinking about making the exception that takes up the time,
not the exception itself. This assumes, of course, that careful thinking is
undertaken.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Viewing a FAA web site was never a "problem".
>
> It is with Firefox 3.

The "problem" was operator headspace adjustment, not the equipment.

I had no "problem" with Firefox 3.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

You didn't ask about the FAA website, you asked why you couldn't access it
with your cobbled together computer.

Get a clue.

Of course you won't. Perhaps you could tell us why you can't find or hold a
job, or why you were booted from the Leica use forum.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> That's fine. I'm not interested in little boys.

Who said anything about little boys? You must have them on your mind.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Viewing a FAA web site was never a "problem".
>
> It is with Firefox 3.

It appears that you don't understand security.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

>
> It appears that you don't understand security.

He doesn't understand much of anything, he just thinks he does.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> You didn't ask about the FAA website, you asked why you couldn't access it
> with your cobbled together computer.

What's the difference, exactly?

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Who said anything about little boys?

Treehouse clubs are started by little boys. Grown-ups and girls aren't
interested.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> Treehouse clubs are started by little boys. Grown-ups and girls aren't
> interested.

Which of the above are you?

[Jon]

On Feb 1, 2:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
> > It took less time to click the two or three buttons and the exception
> > was added, and up popped the information.
>
> It's the careful thinking about making the exception that takes up the time,
> not the exception itself. *This assumes, of course, that careful thinking is
> undertaken.

This assumes that careful thinking is required.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

The only exception is that careful thinking about making the exception was
done by an idiot who doesn't fly, which assumes of course that one is
thinking carefully.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_28_]]

"Maxwell" <#$$9#@%%%.^^^> wrote in :

>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> I don't come here to be amused dumb ass, I come hear to READ about
>>> aviation.
>>
>> Could'a fooled me...
>>
>
> Then like many, you haven't been paying attention.
>
>

I have,


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> This assumes that careful thinking is required.

In this case, careful thinking is required.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

If careful thinking is required, this rules you out, since you obviously
write without thinking. And, by the way, why was it you were kicked off of
the Leica forums?

[Jon]

On Feb 1, 11:02*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> The only exception is that careful thinking about making the exception was
> done by an idiot who doesn't fly, which assumes of course that one is
> thinking carefully.

I prefer this interpretation: Notice the original reply used 'careful
thinking' twice w/in the same paragraph. The second reference attempts
to imply that only certain individuals have the ability. Guess into
which group he places himself? It's a thinly veiled attempt at self-
inflation.

In any event: It was not a hard requirement by any means. There are
those who are quite familiar with NAIMES and who already knew that the
site is trusted. This includes, but it not necessarily limited to,
pilots.

Again, much ado about nothing, made into something, by no one in
particular.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Viewing a FAA web site was never a "problem".
>
> It is with Firefox 3.

Well just to show you don't have a clue. It isn't a Firefox problem
because I don't use Firefox and I see the issue you describe.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Jon writes:
>
> > This assumes that careful thinking is required.
>
> In this case, careful thinking is required.

That implies some kind of serious consequence for being wrong. What
serious consequences do you face for missing a NOTAM or violating a TFR
in your simulated airplane?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[JB]

On Jan 30, 7:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Is anyone else getting SSL security errors when trying to access the FAA Web
> site's Pilotweb pages? *I tried to look up TFRs today and got an error message
> saying the certificate issuer was unknown. *One URL that does this is:
>
> https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/center.html

Now that he's back, can I stop slamming my car door on my fingers
now?

--JB

[Tri-Pacer[_3_]]

>
> That implies some kind of serious consequence for being wrong. What
> serious consequences do you face for missing a NOTAM or violating a TFR
> in your simulated airplane?
>
>

Oh man how about a simulated violation with a simulated loss of certificate.
Or even worse, a simulated mid-air with a water bomber for simulating flying
through a firefighting TFR.

Cheers:
Paul
N1431A
KSDM

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 31, 10:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > I'm sorry, but that is just **too** funny!!! *Why are you interested
> > in TFRs?
>
> I check them before flights, but in this case I wanted to see if there was a
> TFR for that volcano in Alaska (and there is).

I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer). However,
wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on the
grass, etc)? I guess I don't understand how a TFR would benefit a
simulator. In anycase, I've never heard of the website you mention, I
use tfr.faa.gov to check TFRs online.

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> Well just to show you don't have a clue. It isn't a Firefox problem
> because I don't use Firefox and I see the issue you describe.

It will be a problem with any browser that does not already have a certificate
for the issuer; it will not be a problem for any browser that has the
certificate.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> In any event: It was not a hard requirement by any means. There are
> those who are quite familiar with NAIMES and who already knew that the
> site is trusted.

That's not what the SSL certificate is for.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> That implies some kind of serious consequence for being wrong. What
> serious consequences do you face for missing a NOTAM or violating a TFR
> in your simulated airplane?

The serious consequence of accepting a bogus certificate authority is that
your computer can be infected with malware after you have done so. If you
enjoy identity theft, credit-card fraud, or reinstalling machines to eliminate
malware, that is your prerogative, but most people don't enjoy that.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
> finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer). However,
> wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
> could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on the
> grass, etc)?

Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires that
many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be respected in
the simulated world.

[Jon]

On Feb 2, 3:23*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
> > In any event: It was not a hard requirement by any means. There are
> > those who are quite familiar with NAIMES and who already knew that the
> > site is trusted.
>
> That's not what the SSL certificate is for.

So the certificate is self-signed. I trust NAIMES.


Sorry, gotta get back to work with the NAIMES folks.

Have fun in virtual land, simboy...

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
> > That implies some kind of serious consequence for being wrong. What
> > serious consequences do you face for missing a NOTAM or violating a TFR
> > in your simulated airplane?
>
> The serious consequence of accepting a bogus certificate authority is that
> your computer can be infected with malware after you have done so. If you
> enjoy identity theft, credit-card fraud, or reinstalling machines to eliminate
> malware, that is your prerogative, but most people don't enjoy that.

Funny. I had always thought that you were highly skilled with computers,
and that your amusing bluster regarding aviation was due to the common
mistake of thinking that skill in one area implies intelligence in all
areas.

Turns out you apparently don't know squat about computers either. Guess
I shouldn't be surprised.

Do you never visit unsecured http sites? Might get malware, you know!
And how about usenet? Definitely no SSL on that, and I'm certain there's
at least one remotely-exploitable buffer overflow in your newsreader
that could be used to do all sorts of horrible things to your computer.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jon]

On Feb 2, 1:08*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Jon writes:
>
> > > This assumes that careful thinking is required.
>
> > In this case, careful thinking is required.
>
> That implies some kind of serious consequence for being wrong. What
> serious consequences do you face for missing a NOTAM or violating a TFR
> in your simulated airplane?

He'll remained on the ground while the rest of you are wheels up :D

> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Regards,
Jon

[Jon]

On Feb 2, 3:44*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> [...]
> Do you never visit unsecured http sites? Might get malware, you know!
> And how about usenet? Definitely no SSL on that, and I'm certain there's
> at least one remotely-exploitable buffer overflow in your newsreader

There's a buffer overflow, but it's probably somewhere else :)

> that could be used to do all sorts of horrible things to your computer.

It's consistent with the overall fear of several things.

> Mike Ash

Regards,
Jon
--
"0verthinking,
overanalyzing,
separates the body from the mind" - Tool

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> That implies some kind of serious consequence for being wrong. What
>> serious consequences do you face for missing a NOTAM or violating a TFR
>> in your simulated airplane?
>
> The serious consequence of accepting a bogus certificate authority is that
> your computer can be infected with malware after you have done so. If you
> enjoy identity theft, credit-card fraud, or reinstalling machines to eliminate
> malware, that is your prerogative, but most people don't enjoy that.

So, you think that a FAA site is going to steal your identity, put
bogus charges on your credit card or install malware?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 2, 12:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
> > I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
> > finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer). However,
> > wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
> > could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on the
> > grass, etc)?
>
> Only if you're a gamer. *Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires that
> many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be respected in
> the simulated world.

Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
life restrictions why simulate?

-Robert

[Taylor[_3_]]

A real pilot would not use FAA's pilot web to learn about TFRs and
NOTAMs as part of an official weather briefing (verbal or electronic),
which is the only one that counts.


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> A real pilot or any other normal rational individual could care less about
>> you and your computer, since you are not a pilot and have no need to know
>> about TFRs.
>
> My computer is not the one he needs to access to learn about TFRs and NOTAMs.
> The one he needs to access is the one with the problem.

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Feb 2, 12:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary writes:
> > > I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
> > > finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer). However,
> > > wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
> > > could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on the
> > > grass, etc)?
> >
> > Only if you're a gamer. *Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires that
> > many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be respected
> > in
> > the simulated world.
>
> Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
> not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
> life restrictions why simulate?

Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
just an interesting change of pace.

The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
a desk instead of in a cockpit.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Peter Dohm]

"Mike Ash" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > Robert M. Gary writes:
>> > > I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
>> > > finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer).
>> > > However,
>> > > wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
>> > > could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on
>> > > the
>> > > grass, etc)?
>> >
>> > Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
>> > that
>> > many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
>> > respected
>> > in
>> > the simulated world.
>>
>> Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
>> not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
>> life restrictions why simulate?
>
> Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
> NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
> can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
> just an interesting change of pace.
>
> The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
> training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
> a desk instead of in a cockpit.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

You forgot about the all-important "pause button" to facilitate potty-stops,
and visits to the fridge, without the dsiruption and delay associated with a
real stop enroute...

Peter ;-)

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 9:03*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> > Robert M. Gary writes:
> >> > > I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
> >> > > finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer).
> >> > > However,
> >> > > wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
> >> > > could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on
> >> > > the
> >> > > grass, etc)?
>
> >> > Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
> >> > that
> >> > many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
> >> > respected
> >> > in
> >> > the simulated world.
>
> >> Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
> >> not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
> >> life restrictions why simulate?
>
> > Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
> > NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
> > can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
> > just an interesting change of pace.
>
> > The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
> > training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
> > a desk instead of in a cockpit.
>
> > --
> > Mike Ash
> > Radio Free Earth
> > Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
>
> You forgot about the all-important "pause button" to facilitate potty-stops,
> and visits to the fridge, without the dsiruption and delay associated with a
> real stop enroute...
>
> Peter * ;-)

My first long haul ride in a GA plane (Piper Aztec) was with two IFR
pilots. It tooks several days (Hanscom AFB to Lafayette, LA). I
finally understood what they meant by "running out of ass before you
run out of gas" ;)

Regards,
Jon

[Mxsmanic]

Taylor writes:

> A real pilot would not use FAA's pilot web to learn about TFRs and
> NOTAMs as part of an official weather briefing (verbal or electronic),
> which is the only one that counts.

Real pilots use it all the time, and that is its main purpose, which is why
the site is secured with SSL.

Obviously, good pilots will draw information from multiple sources and will
not skip briefings, but pilots definitely use the Web as one of those sources,
particularly for preliminary planning.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> So the certificate is self-signed.

No, it just isn't in the browser database.

> I trust NAIMES.

The problem is with determining whether or not the certificate really came
from NAIMES.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

However, in your case you are not a good pilot, and not a pilot at all, so
you have no idea what good pilots can or should do. And, why was it you were
banned from the Leica forums?

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

It seems that our self proclaimed expert in everything from photography to
flying to breast feeding actually very little understanding of computers,
which is probably why he can't find gainful employment.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Funny. I had always thought that you were highly skilled with computers,
> and that your amusing bluster regarding aviation was due to the common
> mistake of thinking that skill in one area implies intelligence in all
> areas.

I have some knowledge of many domains, but it is true that I'm quite well
informed about computers. My knowledge of aviation is that of an enthusiast,
whereas my knowledge of computers is that of a practitioner, although there
isn't always a big difference between the two.

> Do you never visit unsecured http sites?

Regularly.

> Might get malware, you know!

That depends on what you do on the sites.

The concern in this case is that you could visit a bogus site and receive
bogus information, if not necessarily malware per se (although that's also a
possibility, albeit unlikely for this type of site).

> And how about usenet?

USENET is just text, so it's not a risk.

> Definitely no SSL on that, and I'm certain there's
> at least one remotely-exploitable buffer overflow in your newsreader
> that could be used to do all sorts of horrible things to your computer.

Maybe, but even if there were, it would be too infrequently used for bad guys
to want to exploit.

The same is likely true for these FAA Web sites, but when the lack of a
certificate prevents you from seeing the site at all, it's irritating.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So, you think that a FAA site is going to steal your identity, put
> bogus charges on your credit card or install malware?

No, but a bogus site might. And if it's not a SSL connection, impersonation
is easy.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
> not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
> life restrictions why simulate?

Simulation allows you to select which constraints you will respect, and which
you will not. Real life doesn't offer that possibility.

For example, I don't need to jump through hoops to get a license just to
simulate flight, and that's one part of real life that I don't wish to
simulate, so I skip it. On the other hand, following real-world navigation
procedures interests me greatly, so I meticulously follow those in simulation.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Jon > wrote:

> On Feb 3, 9:03*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
> >
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> >
> > >> On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > >> > Robert M. Gary writes:
> > >> > > I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
> > >> > > finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer).
> > >> > > However,
> > >> > > wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
> > >> > > could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on
> > >> > > the
> > >> > > grass, etc)?
> >
> > >> > Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
> > >> > that
> > >> > many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
> > >> > respected
> > >> > in
> > >> > the simulated world.
> >
> > >> Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
> > >> not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
> > >> life restrictions why simulate?
> >
> > > Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
> > > NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
> > > can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
> > > just an interesting change of pace.
> >
> > > The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
> > > training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
> > > a desk instead of in a cockpit.
> >
> > > --
> > > Mike Ash
> > > Radio Free Earth
> > > Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
> >
> > You forgot about the all-important "pause button" to facilitate potty-stops,
> > and visits to the fridge, without the dsiruption and delay associated with a
> > real stop enroute...
> >
> > Peter * ;-)
>
> My first long haul ride in a GA plane (Piper Aztec) was with two IFR
> pilots. It tooks several days (Hanscom AFB to Lafayette, LA). I
> finally understood what they meant by "running out of ass before you
> run out of gas" ;)

Coming up on 59 years of age, I no longer am so interested in flying
something with five or eight hours endurance, as I was when I was 21 and
first flying.

Darn.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
> NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
> can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
> just an interesting change of pace.

Exactly. In real life, they would be headaches; in simulation, they are
challenges.

When extremely bad weather closes airports, or nearly so, real pilots are
smart enough to stay on the ground, where it's safe. On online simulation
networks, though, pilots gravitate towards areas of terrible weather, in order
to take up the challenge of flying under very poor weather conditions.

That's just one of the advantages of simulation. And it isn't necessarily a
waste of time, even if you disregard the entertainment aspect. Practicing
instrument navigation in poor weather can carry over into real life in useful
ways.

> The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
> training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
> a desk instead of in a cockpit.

Exactly. You get 95% of the fun with none of the hassle, depending on which
aspect of flying you prefer.

And there are some things you'll never do as a pilot in real life, so
simulation is your only option in those cases. It's unlikely that you'll ever
fly a 747, for example, even if you have a PPL. Only airline pilots fly
those. And even they can only fly them when and where the airline allows.
That's why airline pilots sometimes amuse themselves with simulators, too.

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 12:29*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
> > So the certificate is self-signed.
>
> No, it just isn't in the browser database.
>
> > I trust NAIMES.
>
> The problem is with determining whether or not the certificate really came
> from NAIMES.

It did

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> You forgot about the all-important "pause button" to facilitate potty-stops,
> and visits to the fridge, without the dsiruption and delay associated with a
> real stop enroute...

No need to pause the sim. You can visit the toilet or the galley in real life
while the flight continues, so you can do it in the sim as well.

An advantage to the sim, though, is that even the smallest aircraft have
toilets and galleys. Nevertheless, I try to keep my flights on toilet-free
aircraft limited to potty range.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
> that
> many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
> respected in
> the simulated world.

So you don't let gamers into your simulated treehouse?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 3, 9:39*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
> > training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
> > a desk instead of in a cockpit.
>
> Exactly. *You get 95% of the fun with none of the hassle, depending on which
> aspect of flying you prefer.

You won't convince me of that. You miss out on nearly all the
sensations of flying. When I go out to the Aeronca I smell the fresh
grass from the runway, I hear the birds. When I get in the plane I
smell the wonderful aroma of avgas and oil. I feel the wooden prop on
my hands as I give the engine its breath of life. I feel the sensation
of bounced down the grass runway and I feel the G load as I make a
quick left turn to avoid the nearby class D airspace. I see the
mountains 200 miles away on a clear and and see the snow caps on them.
I hear the 65 hp. Cont purring away.
I honestly would not have the patience to sit in from of a computer
but I love smelling the flowers as I make a low pass over the fields.
That is what flying is about to me.

-Robert

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Exactly. You get 95% of the fun with none of the hassle, depending on which
> aspect of flying you prefer.

I agree with the rest of what you said, but this is ridiculous. YOU may
get 95% of the fun (although how you could tell, never having flown a
real plane, is beyond me) but that is by no means universal. The number
for me is more like 1%, which is why I've basically stopped simming
since I started flying for real. You can bet that I'm not driving 90
minutes each way and paying $30+ for tows just to make up that last five
percent!

Sims are fun, sims are useful in limited ways, but a 95% solution they
are not.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 12:39*pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
> *Jon > wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 9:03*am, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > > "Mike Ash" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > > >> On Feb 2, 12:27 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > >> > Robert M. Gary writes:
> > > >> > > I guess I just don't understand simulation (I have a hard time just
> > > >> > > finding time to mow my lawn, much less play on the computer).
> > > >> > > However,
> > > >> > > wouldn't the benefit of playing on the flight simulator be that you
> > > >> > > could ignore real TFRs and fly right over the White House (land on
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > grass, etc)?
>
> > > >> > Only if you're a gamer. Normally the enjoyment of simulation requires
> > > >> > that
> > > >> > many of the same constraints that apply in the real world also be
> > > >> > respected
> > > >> > in
> > > >> > the simulated world.
>
> > > >> Kind of seems like having a hot blow up doll who's realistic enough to
> > > >> not want to have sex with you. If you're going to be bound by real
> > > >> life restrictions why simulate?
>
> > > > Nah, to a non-pilot playing with a simulator, things like TFRs and weird
> > > > NOTAMs are cool and interesting challenges. There's no certificate that
> > > > can be threatened, there's no actual travel to be disrupted, so it's
> > > > just an interesting change of pace.
>
> > > > The key restrictions simulations *don't* have are danger, cost, and
> > > > training requiremetns, which are the keys to why our friend here sits at
> > > > a desk instead of in a cockpit.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Mike Ash
> > > > Radio Free Earth
> > > > Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
>
> > > You forgot about the all-important "pause button" to facilitate potty-stops,
> > > and visits to the fridge, without the dsiruption and delay associated with a
> > > real stop enroute...
>
> > > Peter * ;-)
>
> > My first long haul ride in a GA plane (Piper Aztec) was with two IFR
> > pilots. It tooks several days (Hanscom AFB to Lafayette, LA). I
> > finally understood what they meant by "running out of ass before you
> > run out of gas" ;)
>
> Coming up on 59 years of age, I no longer am so interested in flying
> something with five or eight hours endurance, as I was when I was 21 and
> first flying.
>
> Darn.

I hear ya. This was back in my mid 30's. The Aztec had about a 4 hour
range at most, as I recall. The pilot always played it safe, though,
and wouldn't push anything (range, flying conditions, etc.).

Departed KBED and our first stop was in Roanoke for lunch. Afterwards,
I went to stock up at the candy machine for the next leg. Another
pilot in the room made eye contact and said words to the effect of
"It's amazing we're alive on this diet, isn't it?" Never looked at a
vending machine quite the same way since ;)

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The concern in this case is that you could visit a bogus site and receive
> bogus information, if not necessarily malware per se (although that's also a
> possibility, albeit unlikely for this type of site).

Funny, that's not what you said before:

> The serious consequence of accepting a bogus certificate authority is that
> your computer can be infected with malware after you have done so. If you
> enjoy identity theft, credit-card fraud, or reinstalling machines to
> eliminate
> malware, that is your prerogative, but most people don't enjoy that.

Sure is a huge leap from "infected with malware... identity theft,
credit-card fraud" to "bogus information [for which there would be
absolutely no consequences]". I guess consistency is too much to ask
from you.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Taylor writes:
>
>> A real pilot would not use FAA's pilot web to learn about TFRs and
>> NOTAMs as part of an official weather briefing (verbal or electronic),
>> which is the only one that counts.
>
> Real pilots use it all the time, and that is its main purpose, which is why
> the site is secured with SSL.

Wrong again.

Most pilots use http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html to get TFRs and
DUATS or similar for NOTAMS.

Your comment about SSL is just plain silly.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
>
>> So the certificate is self-signed.
>
> No, it just isn't in the browser database.

Yes, the certificate is self-signed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So, you think that a FAA site is going to steal your identity, put
>> bogus charges on your credit card or install malware?
>
> No, but a bogus site might. And if it's not a SSL connection, impersonation
> is easy.

Babbling nonsense.

If you are dumb enough to connect to what appears to be an FAA web site
and click on the link that says Buy Viagra Now, you get what you deserve.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Taylor wrote:
> A real pilot would not use FAA's pilot web to learn about TFRs and
> NOTAMs as part of an official weather briefing (verbal or electronic),
> which is the only one that counts.

Not to mention the F-16 flying next to you, in an extreme nose-up slow
flight maneuver, flashing it's nav lights. <G>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Wrong again.
>
> Most pilots use http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html to get TFRs and
> DUATS or similar for NOTAMS.

Why would the FAA maintain a site for pilots if pilots didn't visit it? Why
would it make it a secure site?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> It did

How do you know?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yes, the certificate is self-signed.

Top-level certificates are not signed. They have to be trusted.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> Sure is a huge leap from "infected with malware... identity theft,
> credit-card fraud" to "bogus information [for which there would be
> absolutely no consequences]".

That's a possibility, too, but for an obscure site such as this one, it's not
as much of a danger as simple bogus information.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If you are dumb enough to connect to what appears to be an FAA web site
> and click on the link that says Buy Viagra Now, you get what you deserve.

You don't have to do that if the bad guys set it up right.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> You won't convince me of that.

That is not my objective, and of course there is a lot of individual
variation.

> You miss out on nearly all the sensations of flying.

Not everyone flies for sensations. Flying commercial airliners provides
little in the way of sensations, and yet many pilots of such aircraft seem to
enjoy it, just the same.

> When I go out to the Aeronca I smell the fresh grass from the runway,
> I hear the birds. When I get in the plane I smell the wonderful aroma
> of avgas and oil. I feel the wooden prop on my hands as I give the
> engine its breath of life. I feel the sensation of bounced down the
> grass runway and I feel the G load as I make a quick left turn to
> avoid the nearby class D airspace. I see the mountains 200 miles
> away on a clear and and see the snow caps on them. I hear the 65 hp.
> Cont purring away.

Almost none of this appeals to me, and the parts that do are mostly simulated.

> I honestly would not have the patience to sit in from of a computer
> but I love smelling the flowers as I make a low pass over the fields.
> That is what flying is about to me.

I agree, if that's what flying is about, you wouldn't enjoy a simulator. You
wouldn't enjoy the flight deck of a 747, either.

A lot of private pilots seem to like this sensation stuff, but there are many
sorts of pilots and they don't all get the same types of satisfaction out of
flying.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Ash writes:

> I agree with the rest of what you said, but this is ridiculous. YOU may
> get 95% of the fun (although how you could tell, never having flown a
> real plane, is beyond me) but that is by no means universal. The number
> for me is more like 1%, which is why I've basically stopped simming
> since I started flying for real. You can bet that I'm not driving 90
> minutes each way and paying $30+ for tows just to make up that last five
> percent!
>
> Sims are fun, sims are useful in limited ways, but a 95% solution they
> are not.

As you yourself admit, it depends on what you're looking for.

My idea of fun is flying in poor visibility for an hour and then finally
coming out of the clouds and mist to see the runway perfectly aligned right in
front of me. It always surprises and pleases me to see what you can do when
flying by instruments alone.

In contrast, flying a Cessna in the mountains at night VFR (or even IFR, with
its limited avionics) can be so stressful that I often just skip it.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> So you don't let gamers into your simulated treehouse?

Gamers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with them.
They closely match the stereotype of the angry young male, which is very far
from my own personality.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> So you don't let gamers into your simulated treehouse?
>
> Gamers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with
> them.
> They closely match the stereotype of the angry young male, which is very
> far
> from my own personality.

Simmers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with
them.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> Most pilots use http://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.html to get TFRs and
>> DUATS or similar for NOTAMS.
>
> Why would the FAA maintain a site for pilots if pilots didn't visit it? Why
> would it make it a secure site?

You haven't a clue what real pilots use and why and apparently no clue
on what it is that SSL secures.

The first is understandable and the second is no surprise.

The SITE is the NAIMES web site, which is where all the NAIMES information
comes from.

Most pilots would not use the PAGE of the web site you refenced because
it is awkward to use for most purposes and the same information is
available elsewhere in easier to use formats.

There is no reason for the PAGE to be served as HTTPS unless other units
of the FAA are using that PAGE for access to traceably valid data, which
pilots do not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yes, the certificate is self-signed.
>
> Top-level certificates are not signed. They have to be trusted.

Babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> If you are dumb enough to connect to what appears to be an FAA web site
>> and click on the link that says Buy Viagra Now, you get what you deserve.
>
> You don't have to do that if the bad guys set it up right.

Arm waving nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> And, why was it you were banned from the Leica forums?
>
He probably claimed his Instamatic 110 was just like the Leicas, and
demanded to know "Exactly how are they different"

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 2:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Wrong again.
>
> > Most pilots usehttp://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/list.htmlto get TFRs and
> > DUATS or similar for NOTAMS.
>
> Why would the FAA maintain a site for pilots if pilots didn't visit it? *Why
> would it make it a secure site?

I know of a reason that it's a secure sight and would be willing to
bet you can't come up with what it is. But then again, I know the
NAIMES Program Manager, so it's not fair is it?

Then again, real life is a challenge. Care to play this game? Here's a
chance to show the world how much more awesomer all that 'careful
thinking' is compared to, umm, knowledge.

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 2:56*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
> > It did
>
> How do you know?

I verified it.

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 1:00*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Jon writes:
>
> >> So the certificate is self-signed.
>
> > No, it just isn't in the browser database.
>
> Yes, the certificate is self-signed.

He obviously doesn't understand the term 'self-signed'.

It's like have the perfect set-up/straight man, only a point/click
away ;)

> Jim Pennino

Regards,
Jon

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 1:15*pm, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
>
> >> So, you think that a FAA site is going to steal your identity, put
> >> bogus charges on your credit card or install malware?
>
> > No, but a bogus site might. *And if it's not a SSL connection, impersonation
> > is easy.
>
> Babbling nonsense.
>
> If you are dumb enough to connect to what appears to be an FAA web site
> and click on the link that says Buy Viagra Now, you get what you deserve.

Whether or not he deserves it, it's just not clear to me what use he
would have for Viagra ;)

> Jim Pennino

Regards,
Jon

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 3:20*pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Steve Foley writes:
>
> >> So you don't let gamers into your simulated treehouse?
>
> > Gamers are a very different breed. *I have almost nothing in common with
> > them.
> > They closely match the stereotype of the angry young male, which is very
> > far
> > from my own personality.

Self-inflation.

> Simmers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with
> them.

This is not a simmer group. Please take your simmer discussion to a
group where it is on-topic

<GRIN>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote

> He probably claimed his Instamatic 110 was just like the Leicas, and
> demanded to know "Exactly how are they different"

Or he claimed anyone who thought differently were just "angry young men."
<g>
--
Jim in NC

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote
>
>> He probably claimed his Instamatic 110 was just like the Leicas, and
>> demanded to know "Exactly how are they different"
>
> Or he claimed anyone who thought differently were just "angry young men."
> <g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

Don't forget they had a treehouse too.

I wonder if he was a fat little kid who couldn't climb the ladder. He seems
to really dispise treehouses.

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> You won't convince me of that.
>
> That is not my objective, and of course there is a lot of individual
> variation.
>
>> You miss out on nearly all the sensations of flying.
>
> Not everyone flies for sensations. Flying commercial airliners provides
> little in the way of sensations, and yet many pilots of such aircraft seem
> to
> enjoy it, just the same.
>
>> When I go out to the Aeronca I smell the fresh grass from the runway,
>> I hear the birds. When I get in the plane I smell the wonderful aroma
>> of avgas and oil. I feel the wooden prop on my hands as I give the
>> engine its breath of life. I feel the sensation of bounced down the
>> grass runway and I feel the G load as I make a quick left turn to
>> avoid the nearby class D airspace. I see the mountains 200 miles
>> away on a clear and and see the snow caps on them. I hear the 65 hp.
>> Cont purring away.
>
> Almost none of this appeals to me, and the parts that do are mostly
> simulated.
>
>> I honestly would not have the patience to sit in from of a computer
>> but I love smelling the flowers as I make a low pass over the fields.
>> That is what flying is about to me.
>
> I agree, if that's what flying is about, you wouldn't enjoy a simulator.
> You
> wouldn't enjoy the flight deck of a 747, either.
>
> A lot of private pilots seem to like this sensation stuff, but there are
> many
> sorts of pilots and they don't all get the same types of satisfaction out
> of
> flying.

The sensations ramain intack in heavy aircraft. Regettably, however, there
are still only two seats with an acceptable view--and even the best
simulations, although far better than the first reease of MS Flight Sim, are
still only adiquate for procedures training. That, of course, is a worthy
purpose is there is no reason that it should ever be a substitute for either
the enjoyment or the utility of flight.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jon" > wrote

> Whether or not he deserves it, it's just not clear to me what use
> he would have for Viagra ;)

He has to get it hard, so it is large enough to keep from ****ing on his
pants.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You haven't a clue what real pilots use and why and apparently no clue
> on what it is that SSL secures.

You haven't answered my question.

> Most pilots would not use the PAGE of the web site you refenced because
> it is awkward to use for most purposes and the same information is
> available elsewhere in easier to use formats.

How do you know this? Why does the FAA provide the pages in question if
pilots don't use them? Have you told the FAA that these pages are not useful
to pilots?

> There is no reason for the PAGE to be served as HTTPS unless other units
> of the FAA are using that PAGE for access to traceably valid data, which
> pilots do not.

So you don't really know why the page is secure?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> I know of a reason that it's a secure sight and would be willing to
> bet you can't come up with what it is. But then again, I know the
> NAIMES Program Manager, so it's not fair is it?

True. So what is that reason?

> Then again, real life is a challenge. Care to play this game? Here's a
> chance to show the world how much more awesomer all that 'careful
> thinking' is compared to, umm, knowledge.

You mean the difference between logic and reason and just being told
something?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> I verified it.

With whom? If it's the person I'm thinking of, he has had at least a year to
fix the problem, and yet it's still there.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Simmers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with
> them.

It sounds that way. I guess you'll have to get your enjoyment the expensive
way.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You haven't a clue what real pilots use and why and apparently no clue
>> on what it is that SSL secures.
>
> You haven't answered my question.

Your question was childish and unworthy of a direct answer.

>> Most pilots would not use the PAGE of the web site you refenced because
>> it is awkward to use for most purposes and the same information is
>> available elsewhere in easier to use formats.
>
> How do you know this?

Because I am a real pilot and talk to a lot of other real pilots.

> Why does the FAA provide the pages in question if
> pilots don't use them? Have you told the FAA that these pages are not useful
> to pilots?

There are lots of FAA provided web pages that are of little use to most
pilots.

What's your point?

>> There is no reason for the PAGE to be served as HTTPS unless other units
>> of the FAA are using that PAGE for access to traceably valid data, which
>> pilots do not.
>
> So you don't really know why the page is secure?

Nope, just guessing about that part as there is no reason for the general
public for it to be secure, so it is likely some internal reason.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Yes, he will have to accept real life to playing a game- what a sacrifice.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

But you don't have a real life, and since you've never flown, you have no
basis of comparison, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

And, why was it you were banned from the Leica forums?

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 8:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
> > I know of a reason that it's a secure sight and would be willing to
> > bet you *can't come up with what it is. But then again, I know the
> > NAIMES Program Manager, so it's not fair is it?
>
> True. *So what is that reason?
>
> > Then again, real life is a challenge. Care to play this game? Here's a
> > chance to show the world how much more awesomer all that 'careful
> > thinking' is compared to, umm, knowledge.
>
> You mean the difference between logic and reason and just being told
> something?

No,but thanks for playing.

It's the difference between actually having the access to the
information. I work with the folks at NAIMES, I've done actual work on
some of their systems. They are hard working folks with integrity.

Versus you, whose integrity I've yet to see any proof of, yet stll
thinking they're connected to some sort of higher order insight and
thinking that few others have the capability of attaining.

How *have* we been able to make it as a species all these years with
such amazing teachers of logic and reasoning like the great Anthony?

Think I'll go take my young (48 next week), knuckle dragging, angry
male, senior software engineering, new england yankee ass back up to
the surface and do some more real work in the real world.

Have fun continually pulling your mental pud in front of everyone
here... and playing it safe everywhere else...

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 11:14*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> But you don't have a real life, and since you've never flown, you have no
> basis of comparison, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions.

But a real life requires taking risk. It's so much safer here in my
shell, a recluse in my virtual world, eleviated from the pain of
being.

> And, why was it you were banned from the Leica forums?

Inability to play with others?

[Jon]

On Feb 3, 8:45*pm, wrote:
> So you don't really know why the page is secure?
>
> Nope, just guessing about that part as there is no reason for the general
> public for it to be secure, so it is likely some internal reason.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

Go figure, Logic, Reason and Careful Thinking, all beaten by a mere
guess.

I'd go one step further and guess that the guess wasn't mere, but was
based on knowledge, common sense, and wisdom, gained from experience
in the field.

> Jim Pennino

Regards.
Jon

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Simmers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with
>> them.
>
> It sounds that way. I guess you'll have to get your enjoyment the
> expensive
> way.

"Expensive" is relative. You spend more, as a percentage of income, on your
video games than I spend on aviation.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony will never accept any logic other than his own, which is twisted and
self serving.

He will never admit that real flying is different from his MSFS game, even
though he has never flown.

He will rationalize and use half truths to justify his own beliefs, while
ignoring evidence to the contrary better than Rob Blagojevich.

This is why he can not find or hold a job in either of two continents.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 3, 5:30*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > Simmers are a very different breed. I have almost nothing in common with
> > them.
>
> It sounds that way. *I guess you'll have to get your enjoyment the expensive
> way.

Aren't you even curious what its like flying a non-simulated airplane?
All the time you've spent on the simulator you could have easily
earned the money for several flights using that time working in a
coffee shop. At least that's the way I think. You could probably earn
enough money in less than a month redirecting your simulation time to
a coffee shop and then would at least know what you are missing.

-Robert

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Anthony has said before he has no interest in flying real planes- he is
actually afraid of flying.


"

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Your question was childish and unworthy of a direct answer.

You were unable to answer the question.

> Because I am a real pilot and talk to a lot of other real pilots.

But you must not be talking to the pilot associations that have complained
about this in the past.

> There are lots of FAA provided web pages that are of little use to most
> pilots.
>
> What's your point?

How do you know which pages are or aren't of use to most pilots?

> Nope, just guessing about that part as there is no reason for the general
> public for it to be secure, so it is likely some internal reason.

But that internal reason couldn't have anything to do with pilots visiting the
site?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> I'd go one step further and guess that the guess wasn't mere, but was
> based on knowledge, common sense, and wisdom, gained from experience
> in the field.

How reliable do you think a guess predicated upon another guess might be?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> It's the difference between actually having the access to the
> information. I work with the folks at NAIMES, I've done actual work on
> some of their systems. They are hard working folks with integrity.

So why are these Web pages secured with SSL, and why are they secured by a
certificate that isn't included in many browsers?

Name a few of the people with whom you're working, and their job titles.

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> But a real life requires taking risk.

It doesn't require taking unnecessary risks, however.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> "Expensive" is relative. You spend more, as a percentage of income, on your
> video games than I spend on aviation.

If you fly just one hour per month, you need an income of $1.2 million per
year in order to make the above statement true.

The only cost of flying for me is electricity, which is about $0.03 per hour
of flight. That's one of the things that favors it as a leisure-time
activity.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Aren't you even curious what its like flying a non-simulated
> airplane?

Sure, but not curious enough to spend the time and money required to take a
ride.

> All the time you've spent on the simulator you could have easily
> earned the money for several flights using that time working in a
> coffee shop.

I've spent about 2000 hours flying in the past 36 months. If I had worked
that time at a minimum-wage job in a coffee shop, I would have earned roughly
enough by now to pay for just 40-50 hours in a real aircraft--and that ignores
the cost of getting a license to fly in the first place. If you count the
cost of getting a license, I would not yet have flown my first hour in real
life as a licensed pilot.

That price/performance ratio is almost inexpressibly bad. As a result, and
given that there is no sine qua non for me in real flight that bars the use of
simulation, simulation gives me orders of magnitude more "bang for the buck"
in terms of enjoyment. In fact, it's one of the cheapest hobbies and
leisure-time activities that I can think of.

Additionally, there are some things that are possible in simulation that would
not be possible for me in real life (such as, say, piloting a 747
cross-country), which further argues in favor of simulation. I've listed some
of the key advantages of simulation here before.

> At least that's the way I think.

Unfortunately, the numbers don't work out.

> You could probably earn
> enough money in less than a month redirecting your simulation time to
> a coffee shop and then would at least know what you are missing.

A month in a coffee shop would pay for about an hour of flight in a real
airplane. Compare 55 hours of work at minimum wage for one hour flying to 40
minutes of work for 55 hours of flying, and there is absolutely no
contest--simulation wins hands-down.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> It doesn't require taking unnecessary risks, however.

Which is why Anthony lives in a hovel and can't find a job.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

>
> The only cost of flying for me is electricity, which is about $0.03 per
> hour
> of flight. That's one of the things that favors it as a leisure-time
> activity.

Just more in Anthony's long list of excuses as to why he can't fly.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

Name some of the people you have worked for and tell us why you don't work
for them any longer.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Your question was childish and unworthy of a direct answer.
>
> You were unable to answer the question.

Nope, your question was childish and unworthy of a direct answer.

>> Because I am a real pilot and talk to a lot of other real pilots.
>
> But you must not be talking to the pilot associations that have complained
> about this in the past.

What pilot associations and when?

Got a cite for this of just making it up?

>> There are lots of FAA provided web pages that are of little use to most
>> pilots.
>>
>> What's your point?
>
> How do you know which pages are or aren't of use to most pilots?

Because I am a real pilot and talk to a lot of other real pilots.

>> Nope, just guessing about that part as there is no reason for the general
>> public for it to be secure, so it is likely some internal reason.
>
> But that internal reason couldn't have anything to do with pilots visiting the
> site?

If you actually knew what HTTPS does, you wouldn't ask that question.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
>
>> It's the difference between actually having the access to the
>> information. I work with the folks at NAIMES, I've done actual work on
>> some of their systems. They are hard working folks with integrity.
>
> So why are these Web pages secured with SSL, and why are they secured by a
> certificate that isn't included in many browsers?

Quite likely the same reason I have some things secured with SSL with
a self-signed certificate.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc]

So, it sounds like your fundamental problem is finding and holding a real
job- perhaps you should start there.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 4, 8:38*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:

> > All the time you've spent on the simulator you could have easily
> > earned the money for several flights using that time working in a
> > coffee shop.
>
> I've spent about 2000 hours flying in the past 36 months. *If I had worked
> that time at a minimum-wage job in a coffee shop, I would have earned roughly
> enough by now to pay for just 40-50 hours in a real aircraft--and that ignores
> the cost of getting a license to fly in the first place. *If you count the
> cost of getting a license, I would not yet have flown my first hour in real
> life as a licensed pilot.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the cost of getting a
license" but if I were sitting there thinking I could have used the
2000 hours I spent playing with the sim for the last 36 months to earn
the money to fly 40-50 hours I would be kicking myself pretty hard
about now.

-Robert

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

The moron averages nearly 18 full time weeks a year playing his game. If he
worked half of that time he could have an instrument rating and his own
plane by now.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 4, 12:12*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> The moron averages nearly 18 full time weeks a year playing his game. If he
> worked half of that time he could have an instrument rating and his own
> plane by now.

I believe he's in Paris. There are *lots* of coffee house type jobs in
the city. He could run one of those crape carts and get a chance to
get out and see people and get out of him apartment and some fresh
air.

-Robert

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Feb 4, 8:38*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary writes:
>
> > > All the time you've spent on the simulator you could have easily
> > > earned the money for several flights using that time working in a
> > > coffee shop.
> >
> > I've spent about 2000 hours flying in the past 36 months. *If I had worked
> > that time at a minimum-wage job in a coffee shop, I would have earned
> > roughly
> > enough by now to pay for just 40-50 hours in a real aircraft--and that
> > ignores
> > the cost of getting a license to fly in the first place. *If you count the
> > cost of getting a license, I would not yet have flown my first hour in real
> > life as a licensed pilot.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean when you say "the cost of getting a
> license" but if I were sitting there thinking I could have used the
> 2000 hours I spent playing with the sim for the last 36 months to earn
> the money to fly 40-50 hours I would be kicking myself pretty hard
> about now.

Well, different folks like different things. Our friend here probably
really does get 95% of the fun from simulation as he would get in a real
airplane, so staying home and simming makes more sense than working to
pay for fuel and aircraft rental.

For us, where that number is more like 1%, spending so much time simming
when we could put that effort into real flying is silly.

The trouble is that he can't recognize that the tradeoff is different
for different people, so he thinks we're crazy for spending all that
money to make up what he sees as only the last 5%. Trouble is that he's
ridiculously dismissive about it, so everybody hates on him a whole lot
because of it.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[[email protected]]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:12Â*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
>> The moron averages nearly 18 full time weeks a year playing his game. If he
>> worked half of that time he could have an instrument rating and his own
>> plane by now.
>
> I believe he's in Paris. There are *lots* of coffee house type jobs in
> the city. He could run one of those crape carts and get a chance to
> get out and see people and get out of him apartment and some fresh
> air.
>
> -Robert

He has also said he doesn't like people.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Viperdoc[_6_]]

He could be into making paper dolls for all I care- the biggest issue I have
about Anthony is his use of half truths and misstatements to support his
warped circular logic. Also, his pedantic style given that he has never
flown is really annoying.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 4, 3:12*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:

> Well, different folks like different things. Our friend here probably
> really does get 95% of the fun from simulation as he would get in a real
> airplane, so staying home and simming makes more sense than working to
> pay for fuel and aircraft rental.
>
> For us, where that number is more like 1%, spending so much time simming
> when we could put that effort into real flying is silly.

I don't think he can say he gets 95% of the fun from siming until he
tries flying.

-Robert

[Mike Ash]

In article
>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> On Feb 4, 3:12*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
>
> > Well, different folks like different things. Our friend here probably
> > really does get 95% of the fun from simulation as he would get in a real
> > airplane, so staying home and simming makes more sense than working to
> > pay for fuel and aircraft rental.
> >
> > For us, where that number is more like 1%, spending so much time simming
> > when we could put that effort into real flying is silly.
>
> I don't think he can say he gets 95% of the fun from siming until he
> tries flying.

I agree that he shouldn't be making this claim until he's tried it, but
given his personality, it wouldn't surprise me if he were right on this
point. He seems so determined not to extract any unnecessary enjoyment
out of life that I would wager there's a good chance that the sublime
qualities of flight would figuratively go right over his head.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 4, 11:57*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 3:12*pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
>
> > > Well, different folks like different things. Our friend here probably
> > > really does get 95% of the fun from simulation as he would get in a real
> > > airplane, so staying home and simming makes more sense than working to
> > > pay for fuel and aircraft rental.
>
> > > For us, where that number is more like 1%, spending so much time simming
> > > when we could put that effort into real flying is silly.
>
> > I don't think he can say he gets 95% of the fun from siming until he
> > tries flying.
>
> I agree that he shouldn't be making this claim until he's tried it, but
> given his personality, it wouldn't surprise me if he were right on this
> point. He seems so determined not to extract any unnecessary enjoyment
> out of life that I would wager there's a good chance that the sublime
> qualities of flight would figuratively go right over his head.
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

You want not to forget he gets lots of attention here, and that
attention is from people who for the most part are living real lives
and sometimes fly real airplanes. His chances of engaging an MD or
business executive in casual conversation in real life are minimal,
and here he he gets the opportunity -- BECAUSE WE GIVE IT TO HIM -to
act as a peer, or better, to the group. That is his payoff.

[Darkwing]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Jon writes:
>
>> It's the difference between actually having the access to the
>> information. I work with the folks at NAIMES, I've done actual work on
>> some of their systems. They are hard working folks with integrity.
>
> So why are these Web pages secured with SSL, and why are they secured by a
> certificate that isn't included in many browsers?
>
> Name a few of the people with whom you're working, and their job titles.

Asshole.

[Peter Dohm]

"a" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 4, 11:57 pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
>> In article
>> >,
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
> > On Feb 4, 3:12 pm, Mike Ash > wrote:
>>
>> > > Well, different folks like different things. Our friend here probably
>> > > really does get 95% of the fun from simulation as he would get in a
>> > > real
>> > > airplane, so staying home and simming makes more sense than working
>> > > to
>> > > pay for fuel and aircraft rental.
>>
>> > > For us, where that number is more like 1%, spending so much time
>> > > simming
>> > > when we could put that effort into real flying is silly.
>>
>> > I don't think he can say he gets 95% of the fun from siming until he
>> > tries flying.
>>
>> I agree that he shouldn't be making this claim until he's tried it, but
>> given his personality, it wouldn't surprise me if he were right on this
>> point. He seems so determined not to extract any unnecessary enjoyment
>> out of life that I would wager there's a good chance that the sublime
>> qualities of flight would figuratively go right over his head.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Ash
>> Radio Free Earth
>> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
>
>You want not to forget he gets lots of attention here, and that
>attention is from people who for the most part are living real lives
>and sometimes fly real airplanes. His chances of engaging an MD or
>business executive in casual conversation in real life are minimal,
>and here he he gets the opportunity -- BECAUSE WE GIVE IT TO HIM -to
>act as a peer, or better, to the group. That is his payoff.
>
And, by all appearances, he is paid handsomely indeed!

(Presuming that he is not an elaborately created sock puppet of a
researcher...)

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

a wrote:
>
> You want not to forget he gets lots of attention here, and that
> attention is from people who for the most part are living real lives
> and sometimes fly real airplanes.

Which is exactly why he comes back.

If he got NO replies?

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 5, 5:18*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> a wrote:
>
> > You want not to forget he gets lots of attention here, and that
> > attention is from people who for the most part are living real lives
> > and sometimes fly real airplanes.
>
> Which is exactly why he comes back.
>
> If he got NO replies?

If he got no replies these threads would be a lot shorter, wouldn't
they? It's interesting that people one might assume are in other ways
intellegent get trapped into these one-upsmanship contests. MX plays
the readers of this group expertly, it may be the only skill he has.
Too bad it's not marketable for money.

[Viperdoc]

It's been tried multiple times- as PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born
every minute, and Anthony preys on the willingness of other people offering
him honest advice.

[Jon]

On Feb 5, 11:46*am, "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Jon writes:
>
> >> It's the difference between actually having the access to the
> >> information. I work with the folks at NAIMES, I've done actual work on
> >> some of their systems. They are hard working folks with integrity.
>
> > So why are these Web pages secured with SSL,

To keep the Logic algorithm spinning in an infinite loop wondering
why, of course.

> > and why are they secured by a
> > certificate that isn't included in many browsers?

The certificates are self-signed.

> > Name a few of the people with whom you're working, and their job titles..

The Manic Mechanic claimed to be in-the-loop earlier in the thread
with:

" If it's the person I'm thinking of, he has had at least a year to
fix the problem, and yet it's still there."

You first, since you were so kind to inform us of how plugged in you
are. Shouldn't require too much careful thinking.

> Asshole.

Certainly expects things from others, doesn't he/it? Reminds me of a
child before it learns to grow up.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 4:48*pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> It's been tried multiple times- as PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born
> every minute, and Anthony preys on the willingness of other people offering
> him honest advice.

No, he preys on the NEW people that may wander into the group not
knowing his history.

His words in this very thread...

>MX wrote
>I didn't expect any useful answers
>here but I figured it wouldn't hurt to try, as there are always new pilots
>visiting who aren't members of the treehouse club.

Ironically, this is the first time that I have seen that nobody new
has chimed in AND he did not get an answer to his question.

Just maybe there is hope????

[Mxsmanic]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> writes:

> Asshole.

There are lots of people by that name. Can you be more specific?

[Mxsmanic]

Jon writes:

> The certificates are self-signed.

Most keys are self-signed. But it's not the self-signature that makes them
secure, it's a signature by some other entity that is trusted. If they are at
the top of the hierarchy, as in this case, then they must be explicitly
trusted--which, in a browser, means that they must be in the browser's
database of trusted certificates. The certificate under discussion is not in
that database, and thus an exception occurs when the certificate is used or
referenced to establish SSL sessions.

[Jon]

On Feb 6, 10:16*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
> > The certificates are self-signed.
>
> Most keys are self-signed. *But it's not the self-signature that makes them
> secure, it's a signature by some other entity that is trusted. *If they are at
> the top of the hierarchy, as in this case, then they must be explicitly
> trusted--which, in a browser, means that they must be in the browser's
> database of trusted certificates. *The certificate under discussion is not in
> that database, and thus an exception occurs when the certificate is used or
> referenced to establish SSL sessions.

The certifcate is self-signed.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jon writes:
>
>> The certificates are self-signed.
>
> Most keys are self-signed. But it's not the self-signature that makes them
> secure, it's a signature by some other entity that is trusted. If they are at
> the top of the hierarchy, as in this case, then they must be explicitly
> trusted--which, in a browser, means that they must be in the browser's
> database of trusted certificates. The certificate under discussion is not in
> that database, and thus an exception occurs when the certificate is used or
> referenced to establish SSL sessions.

Babbling, arm-waving nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-signed_certificate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Babbling, arm-waving nonsense.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-signed_certificate
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_certificate

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Babbling, arm-waving nonsense.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-signed_certificate
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_authority
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_certificate

No ****?

Did you read and understand it?

Obviously not.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Viperdoc schrieb:
> The moron averages nearly 18 full time weeks a year playing his game. If he
> worked half of that time he could have an instrument rating and his own
> plane by now.

sorry, but it seems that you have to much time on your hand as you are
still feeding this guy. It is one thing beeing an idiot, but I don't
know if it is better arguing with one.

so save your breath, killfile him.

#m

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 7, 5:10*pm, Martin Hotze > wrote:
> Viperdoc schrieb:
>
> > The moron averages nearly 18 full time weeks a year playing his game. If he
> > worked half of that time he could have an instrument rating and his own
> > plane by now.
>
> sorry, but it seems that you have to much time on your hand as you are
> still feeding this guy. It is one thing beeing an idiot, but I don't
> know if it is better arguing with one.
>
> so save your breath, killfile him.
>
> #m

I think the point is he is not someone you'd engage in conversation in
real life, and probably not even discuss with others -- why do it
here, with him or the other two compulsive 'I can pee higher up the
wall than you can' posters.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> The only cost of flying for me is electricity, which is about $0.03 per
> hour
> of flight.

Router, modem, three days pay.....

[george]

On Feb 11, 1:15*am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > The only cost of flying for me is electricity, which is about $0.03 per
> > hour
> > of flight.
>
> Router, modem, three days pay.....

He forgot to write "The only cost of pretending to fly for me is
electricity"

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Router, modem, three days pay.....

The router and modem lasted 12 years.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Router, modem, three days pay.....
>
> The router and modem lasted 12 years.

My airplane is over 40 years old. What's your point?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Mike Ash writes:
>
>> Sure is a huge leap from "infected with malware... identity theft,
>> credit-card fraud" to "bogus information [for which there would be
>> absolutely no consequences]".
>
> That's a possibility, too, but for an obscure site such as this one,
> it's not as much of a danger as simple bogus information.
>

this isn't a site, fjukktard



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> My airplane is over 40 years old. What's your point?

The amortized cost of the equipment reveals that it performed reasonably well,
even though the capital outlay to replace it all at once was a great financial
hardship. This means that the cost of flight simming is still only a very
tiny fraction of the cost of flying for real.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> The amortized cost of the equipment reveals that it performed reasonably
> well,
> even though the capital outlay to replace it all at once was a great
> financial
> hardship.

The capital outlay to purchase my plane was not a 'great financial hardship'
at all, yet your capital outlay to purchase a router, modem, and somne
cables was.

> This means that the cost of flight simming is still only a very
> tiny fraction of the cost of flying for real.

In fact, you've proven the opposite.

By the way, you never mentioned acquisition cost for your software. Does
this mean you somehow acquired it with no capital outlay?

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 11, 10:47*am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:

> In fact, you've proven the opposite.
>
> By the way, you never mentioned acquisition cost for your software. Does
> this mean you somehow acquired it with no capital outlay?

Haha. That would be funny if he were playing a pirated copy of MSFS.

-Robert

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...

>Haha. That would be funny if he were playing a pirated copy of MSFS.

>-Robert

He's written about his utilities being shut off, and constantly complains
about money.

I wonder why we've never heard him complain about the 15% self employment
tax he's liable for in the US for self employment income earned anywhere in
the world.

There's some kind of exclusion for income tax paid to other countries, but
it doesn't affect self employment tax. I wonder if the IRS knows he's self
employed.

[a[_3_]]

On Feb 13, 3:24*pm, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
> >Haha. That would be funny if he were playing a pirated copy of MSFS.
> >-Robert
>
> He's written about his utilities being shut off, and constantly complains
> about money.
>
> I wonder why we've never heard him complain about the 15% self employment
> tax he's liable for in the US for self employment income earned anywhere in
> the world.
>
> There's some kind of exclusion for income tax paid to other countries, but
> it doesn't affect self employment tax. I wonder if the IRS knows he's self
> employed.

It seems to me we should be grateful MX is not our problem, but that
of France. The attitude fits, as does the altitude.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> That would be funny if he were playing a pirated copy of MSFS.

The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

It is not possible that both of these statements are true:

> The only cost of flying for me is electricity

and

> The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.

[george]

On Feb 15, 12:55*am, "Beauciphus" > wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> It is not possible that both of these statements are true:
>
> > The only cost of flying for me is electricity
>
> and
>
> > The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.

There should be another nought in that figure or the statement isn't
correct.
But then we ARE dealing with mixedup

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> It is not possible that both of these statements are true:
>
> > The only cost of flying for me is electricity
>
> and
>
> > The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.

Actually it is, since the amortized cost of the software approaches zero as
the flying time approaches infinity.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> There should be another nought in that figure or the statement isn't
> correct.

That's the price it is currently selling for.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>> It is not possible that both of these statements are true:
>>
>> > The only cost of flying for me is electricity
>>
>> and
>>
>> > The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.
>
> Actually it is, since the amortized cost of the software approaches zero
> as
> the flying time approaches infinity.

Not too good at math either, are you.

APPROACHING zero is not EQUAL TO zero.

And your FLYING time is not approaching infinity, your FLYING time is equal
to zero.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> george writes:
>
>> There should be another nought in that figure or the statement isn't
>> correct.
>
> That's the price it is currently selling for.

How is the current price relevant for something you claim to have owned for
several years?

You need to keep your lies straight.

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Beauciphus writes:
>
> > It is not possible that both of these statements are true:
> >
> > > The only cost of flying for me is electricity
> >
> > and
> >
> > > The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.
>
> Actually it is, since the amortized cost of the software approaches zero as
> the flying time approaches infinity.

Planning to live forever, eh?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 14, 1:52*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Beauciphus writes:
> > It is not possible that both of these statements are true:
>
> > > The only cost of flying for me is electricity
>
> > and
>
> > > The copy I have is legitimate, and it cost $18.
>
> Actually it is, since the amortized cost of the software approaches zero as
> the flying time approaches infinity.

Can you provide a link to where you can purchase such software
(legally) for $18?

-Robert

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> How is the current price relevant for something you claim to have owned for
> several years?

The price has never been $180. I think the first copy I bought was $40.

[Mxsmanic]

Beauciphus writes:

> APPROACHING zero is not EQUAL TO zero.

It is at infinity.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> Can you provide a link to where you can purchase such software
> (legally) for $18?

Surcouf in France is selling it for slightly below that price both in its
stores and on its Web site.

[Beauciphus]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Beauciphus writes:
>
>> How is the current price relevant for something you claim to have owned
>> for
>> several years?
>
> The price has never been $180. I think the first copy I bought was $40.

In your normal fashion, you have failed to answer the question, and made a
completely unrelated assertion.

Because you claim the only cost for you is electricity, which you only pay
because they turn it off when you dont, I do not believe that you paid for
the the version you are currently using, or the super-duper baron-addon with
the ejection seat.

[Steve Foley[_4_]]

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...

>
> The other day I bought a copy of MSFS2002 for 10 EUR in a bargain bin.
> They chuck out old versions regularly for such prices, don't they do
> that in the US?
>

Sure, but finding one in a bin, or receiving one as a gift is a good deal,
but you can't really claim the 'cost' for the general public is the bargain
price you found it for once.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Sure, but finding one in a bin, or receiving one as a gift is a good deal,
> but you can't really claim the 'cost' for the general public is the bargain
> price you found it for once.

The cost I gave for FS2004 is a real-world, retail price right now.