🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tuesday, in article <1185306786snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>
     pete@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote:

> In article <20070723.2111.834131snz@twoplaces.co.uk>
>            simon@twoplaces.co.uk "Simon Turner" writes:

> > 960 and counting.
> 
> And finished counting too!  This reply would have bust the 1000 
> without intervention, though I have to admit it was rather more 
> manual than I might have wished for; my original fix would have 
> worked, though it was trimming references: _before_ replying :-(  
> Somewhat too fail-safe --  a bit more work still to do on 
> post_header()...

Ah; sigh.  But better than this 2001-era-JLW-based one, which does all
the folding etc. properly, but doesn't worry about the length of the
unfolded result at all (I had to remove the second entry to get the
unfolded length back to below 1000 chars).

> > (b) my father
> > agreed about the Vulcan's manoeuvrability, describing it as handling
> > like a fighter and being a wonderful aircraft to fly.
> 
> Re: (b) Having seen the Vulcan fly at various displays over the 
> years, I'm not surprised -- though I guess when fully loaded it 
> would have been somewhat more sedate.

I'm quite sure it would have been!  My mind still boggles at anything
that size being as manoeuvrable as it clearly was, even when empty.

(On a related note, I recall a brief glimpse, on the TV coverage of
Concorde's final day, of one of them doing a "performance" take-off
and climb-out at the start of its final flight back to Heathrow; never
seen the footage since, but it was *very* impressive.)

> Did your father have 
> anything to do with the HP-115 or BAC Type 221?  Just being nosy.

I believe he flew the HP-115 (I remember him pointing it out to me in
the RNAS Yeovilton museum many years ago), although I don't think he
was heavily involved in that project; not sure about the BAC Type
221.  I'd have to check his log books to be sure!

> > You need to get the two halves of your ISP arrangements sorted out:
> > news is *so* much faster by ADSL!
> 
> I don't doubt it.  I guess I could try to track down a wifi card 
> for this DOS PC and the software to drive it, but likely I'd lose 
> 100K or more of conventional memory.

Any particular reason why a wi-fi card, rather than a normal ethernet
card plus some cable to the router?  Packet drivers are much easier to
come by for normal cards (some even don't cost much, if any,
conventional memory IIRC -- but it's been a few years since I ran a
DOS-only machine for net access).

> And I quite like keeping 
> the two systems completely independent; not that the ADSL has 
> ever failed, but if it did the low-tech dialup provides a useful 
> alternative!

Nothing to stop you reverting to the modem if/when things go wrong; I
did the same thing with ISDN last year, when spending nearly a month
without usable ADSL thanks to the BT "engineer" who claimed he couldn't
hear the loud crackling on the line, even though everyone else could.
(Not an option any more, since BT murdered Home Highway; sigh.)

-- 
Simon Turner                                    DoD #0461
simon@twoplaces.co.uk
    Trust me -- I know what I'm doing!          -- Sledge Hammer