In article , ARW
wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/06/2014 10:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

charles scribbled...

In article , ARW
wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
o.uk...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:08:21 +0100, ARW wrote:

Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/ Awesome - but totally OT.

many years ago I worked in Pontefract and the Vulcan's used to
come in
low over the town using the bus staion as a marker. Then they
puled
the stick back and pushed the throttle hard forward for a near
vertical
climb.

I still get the shivers down my spine just thinking about them
- fabulous planes.

Wasn't their last active flying to the Falklands or have I
misremembered that? It was one of their missions - and they
totally failed in that
one other
than for moral purposes:-( not quite true. Read the wiki page on
"Operation Black Buck"

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any
carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Well we do have a carrier, but it only carries choppers, no fast jets.
That was the mistake - selling the remaining harriers to the Yanks.

AIUI, there was also some chance that the Argies, having seen that we
could mount a bombing raid from 8000 miles away, became nervous that
we might attack Buenos Ares, and so held some of their fighter-bombers
up north just in case.

The Argies made any number of fatal strategic mistakes - mostly not
fully committing to the engagement, flying some of their best aircraft
to neutral countries so they were impounded etc, rather than lost in
dogfights, and telling their pilots not to engage with the harriers.
(Even if they had lost aircraft at a 5:1 ratio, they could have won
simply by attrition).

There is always the possibility that the fighters could have been
destroyed on the ground by bombs from the Vulcan bombers:-))))))

Their biggest mistake was in underestimating Mrs T. I am sure that time
will tell that the Belgrano sinking was illegal and she gave the go
ahead to sink it. No ships - no troups, That won the war.

But, invading the Falklands was illegal in the first place,

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:47:59 +0100, ARW wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/06/2014 10:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

charles scribbled...

In article , ARW
wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
o.uk...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:08:21 +0100, ARW wrote:

Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/ Awesome - but totally OT.

many years ago I worked in Pontefract and the Vulcan's used to
come in
low over the town using the bus staion as a marker. Then they
puled
the stick back and pushed the throttle hard forward for a near
vertical
climb.

I still get the shivers down my spine just thinking about them
-
fabulous planes.

Wasn't their last active flying to the Falklands or have I
misremembered that?
It was one of their missions - and they totally failed in that
one other
than for moral purposes:-(
not quite true. Read the wiki page on "Operation Black Buck"

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any
carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Well we do have a carrier, but it only carries choppers, no fast jets.
That was the mistake - selling the remaining harriers to the Yanks.

AIUI, there was also some chance that the Argies, having seen that we
could mount a bombing raid from 8000 miles away, became nervous that
we might attack Buenos Ares, and so held some of their fighter-bombers
up north just in case.

The Argies made any number of fatal strategic mistakes - mostly not
fully committing to the engagement, flying some of their best aircraft
to neutral countries so they were impounded etc, rather than lost in
dogfights, and telling their pilots not to engage with the harriers.
(Even if they had lost aircraft at a 5:1 ratio, they could have won
simply by attrition).

There is always the possibility that the fighters could have been
destroyed on the ground by bombs from the Vulcan bombers:-))))))

Their biggest mistake was in underestimating Mrs T. I am sure that time
will tell that the Belgrano sinking was illegal and she gave the go
ahead to sink it. No ships - no troups, That won the war.

IIRC the Belgrano survived Pearl Harbour...


--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Having seen it, I'm not going to worry about finding ways to install
the latest flashplayer in win2k. Having just written this, it's just
occurred to me to fire up the testbed install of Mint15 and check it
out there.

Using the default FF browser (haven't gotten round to ditching that
bit of rubbish in favour of Opera just yet),

What's wrong with it?..

I've been able to play
the video. The youtube one _is_ a low res version (240p) of this one
which appears, at a guess (unable to determine the resolution settings
actually used) to be SD, probably 576 x 704.

Interestingly, the version of Flash seems to be 11.xx.xx so I'm
surprised I couln't get it to play in win2k (perhaps it's the java
that's not up to snuff - there's a sizable chunk of java script
embedded in that 'video' to make it a "Man for all seasons" affair to
cover everything from smart TV playabck to smartphone playback - pity
they didn't consider win2k playback).

I know we've had this issue re WIN2K before but do you really think that
people should worry re compatibility with a system that should have been
retired now a while ago?.

Even I've scrapped our Win 2 K machines with some regret but it all
moves on.

Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks...
--
Tony Sayer

Their biggest mistake was in underestimating Mrs T. I am sure that time will
tell that the Belgrano sinking was illegal and she gave the go ahead to sink
it. No ships - no troups, That won the war.



I remember someone telling me, they were at a conference or meeting
where she was and she said after her advisors had been telling her if
they did this it'd go that way, did the other it'd go the other way etc
and in a very short space of time she said that she didn't care how they
did it she just wanted it to go that way ... pointing her finger to the
floor;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:17:37 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

IIRC the Belgrano survived Pearl Harbour...

You do...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:53:43 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:17:37 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

IIRC the Belgrano survived Pearl Harbour...

You do... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)

Always puts me in mind of 'Cryptonomicon'. Must read it again.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 11/06/2014 22:12, Bob Eager wrote:
Always puts me in mind of 'Cryptonomicon'. Must read it again.

And The Baroque Cycle.

--
Rod

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 14:29:06 +0100, Johny B Good
wrote:

====snip====


Using the default FF browser (haven't gotten round to ditching that
bit of rubbish in favour of Opera just yet),

Just after posting that, I installed Opera 12.16 and got rid of the
'rubbish'. For once the software manager performed its duty without a
hitch.
--
J B Good

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:35:52 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Having seen it, I'm not going to worry about finding ways to install
the latest flashplayer in win2k. Having just written this, it's just
occurred to me to fire up the testbed install of Mint15 and check it
out there.

Using the default FF browser (haven't gotten round to ditching that
bit of rubbish in favour of Opera just yet),

What's wrong with it?..

I don't like it. It's had a history of unaddressed vulnerabilities,
admittedly it was a mere 5 out of 25 known vulnerabilities versus 25
out 75 for IE at the same time that Opera's score was zero out of
zero.

The Pentagon's endorsement to use this instead of Opera as "The Safe
Alternative" to IE only arose because it was less vulnerable than IE
and was totally free. It seems the insignificant banner add in the
free version of Opera was what disqualified it from the 'recommended'
alternatives. The rest, as they say, is history.

There's also the issue of the time required for SpyBot S&D's
immunisation check to deal with FF's identical immunisation
requirements to IE often taking longer to perform than a scan for
adware/spyware and malware crap that suggests it's rather badly
written and at least as vulnerable to driveby downloads as IE (Opera
is protected only to the tune of 43 bad plugins).

Also Opera is faster than IE6 which is the fastest of all the later
versions of IE.


I've been able to play
the video. The youtube one _is_ a low res version (240p) of this one
which appears, at a guess (unable to determine the resolution settings
actually used) to be SD, probably 576 x 704.

Interestingly, the version of Flash seems to be 11.xx.xx so I'm
surprised I couln't get it to play in win2k (perhaps it's the java
that's not up to snuff - there's a sizable chunk of java script
embedded in that 'video' to make it a "Man for all seasons" affair to
cover everything from smart TV playabck to smartphone playback - pity
they didn't consider win2k playback).

I know we've had this issue re WIN2K before but do you really think that
people should worry re compatibility with a system that should have been
retired now a while ago?.

No, I've given up on that forlorn hope many years ago. My problem is
that none, absolutley none of the later versions of NT were palatable
replacements to make retirement of win2k a sensible option. Not even
today but Linux Mint with VirtualBox looks to be about the only
practical way to avoid the worse excesses of Microsoft OS
developments.


Even I've scrapped our Win 2 K machines with some regret but it all
moves on.

It certainly does. In my case the host OS _isn't_ going to be a
Microsoft product when I next upgrade the hardware beyond win2k's
reach in about a year's time.


Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks...

Just as you might well expect. :-)
--
J B Good

On 11/06/2014 19:47, ARW wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 09/06/2014 10:48, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

charles scribbled...

In article , ARW
wrote:
"David P" wrote in message
o.uk...
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:08:21 +0100, ARW wrote:

Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/ Awesome - but totally OT.

many years ago I worked in Pontefract and the Vulcan's used to
come in
low over the town using the bus staion as a marker. Then they
puled
the stick back and pushed the throttle hard forward for a near
vertical
climb.

I still get the shivers down my spine just thinking about them -
fabulous planes.

Wasn't their last active flying to the Falklands or have I
misremembered that?
It was one of their missions - and they totally failed in that
one other
than for moral purposes:-(
not quite true. Read the wiki page on "Operation Black Buck"

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any
carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Well we do have a carrier, but it only carries choppers, no fast jets.
That was the mistake - selling the remaining harriers to the Yanks.

AIUI, there was also some chance that the Argies, having seen that we
could mount a bombing raid from 8000 miles away, became nervous that we
might attack Buenos Ares, and so held some of their fighter-bombers up
north just in case.

The Argies made any number of fatal strategic mistakes - mostly not
fully committing to the engagement, flying some of their best aircraft
to neutral countries so they were impounded etc, rather than lost in
dogfights, and telling their pilots not to engage with the harriers.
(Even if they had lost aircraft at a 5:1 ratio, they could have won
simply by attrition).

There is always the possibility that the fighters could have been
destroyed on the ground by bombs from the Vulcan bombers:-))))))

Their biggest mistake was in underestimating Mrs T. I am sure that time
will tell that the Belgrano sinking was illegal and she gave the go
ahead to sink it. No ships - no troups, That won the war.

I think even the argies admit that the Belgrano was a legit target...



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 10/06/2014 11:08, Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 10:40:20 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Bob Eager scribbled...


Other bits of Liberty are about ,Greece got the last one available
from the US reserve a few years back to act as a non working museum
in honour of how their merchant fleet expanded using them.
And of course there is still the Richard Montgomery lying in the
Thames Estuary full of corroding munitions to which the
authorities have applied the asbestos solution, if we don't disturb
it, it will probably be ok.


We've still got the SS Richard Montgomery parked off Sheerness...

Um....I think he said that...


Opps - didn't scroll all the way down.
Teach me to get up early and play on here half asleep.

Depending on who you listen to, we would be affected by the blast...!

ISTR they reckon the Thorpe Bay and Shoebury coastline to the east of
Southend would also be in the firing line - with the potential to at
least take out some windows etc.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/06/2014 16:50, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
scribeth thus
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:58:29 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers -
almost than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

Why you sceptical about that?

I'm no military expert, far from it, but it strikes me that the vast
majority of military action that this country's been involved in over the
last century or so has been primarily land-based, with naval and air
support. Which, to me, seems to suggest that the most important service
is the Army, with the Navy and RAF as essential backups.

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then. We barely won that, and
it needed a lot of help from Ultra. As it was they sank 5000 merchant
ships in WW1 and 5000 ships in WW2. In WW2, we sank 1100 U-boats.

Also not followed the Pacific war either, I'd guess. That would have
been a non-starter for the Yanks without a Navy.

Without the Navy, Adolf could have invaded quite easily, and his
surface ships and subs would have strangled our imports. We'd have lost
in pretty short order.


Quite;!....

One could also argue that he was not prepared to invade without total
air superiority, and the Battle of Britain put paid to any early
thoughts along those lines.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 10/06/2014 08:20, Lobster wrote:
On 09 Jun 2014, bert ] grunted:

In message , Huge
writes
I used to fly to Copenhagen every Wednesday morning from Heathrow and
more often than not the aircraft in front of us was the morning
Concord flight to Washington. When he opened the taps for takeoff,
everything in our aircraft rattled & on a couple of occasions some of
the overhead lockers fell open. As he accelerated away down the runway
you could see two things, one impressive - into the exhausts of the
engines, the mouth of Hell, one less so - the huge plume of filth the
thing chucked out the back.


Fantastic plane. Flew back from Monaco Grand Prix from Nice - just
before it crashed. Same pilot.

Yep, I went on it once too. Got to sit in seat 1A - the Queen's seat - and
even got a full tour of the cockpit as well...

I only ever walked through the one at Ducksford... seem to recall it was
tiny inside - I could not even stand properly in the isle!


...would have been even better if we'd been in the air, rather than at
Manchester Airport Aviation Park.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 09/06/2014 09:48, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 9 Jun 2014 07:03:29 GMT, Huge wrote:

we get rather spoiled.

Not sure I'd like that much noise. We get fast jets through here
close enough to see the pilots at times. They are loud but up, past
and gone in less than a minuet. Chinooks just make the windows
rattle, Black Hawks nervous, having no real requirement to be
streamlined, they just look like the killing machines they are.

I was in a friends back garden a couple of years back and a pair of
Apache gunships flew over...

I really would not want to be anywhere near those when they are doing
what they are designed for. Not only do they look evil, they well and
truly sound it as well! I can quite understand why your average Afghani
insurgent would loathe them so much.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , Johny B Good
scribeth thus
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 20:35:52 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Having seen it, I'm not going to worry about finding ways to install
the latest flashplayer in win2k. Having just written this, it's just
occurred to me to fire up the testbed install of Mint15 and check it
out there.

Using the default FF browser (haven't gotten round to ditching that
bit of rubbish in favour of Opera just yet),

What's wrong with it?..

I don't like it. It's had a history of unaddressed vulnerabilities,
admittedly it was a mere 5 out of 25 known vulnerabilities versus 25
out 75 for IE at the same time that Opera's score was zero out of
zero.

The Pentagon's endorsement to use this instead of Opera as "The Safe
Alternative" to IE only arose because it was less vulnerable than IE
and was totally free. It seems the insignificant banner add in the
free version of Opera was what disqualified it from the 'recommended'
alternatives. The rest, as they say, is history.

There's also the issue of the time required for SpyBot S&D's
immunisation check to deal with FF's identical immunisation
requirements to IE often taking longer to perform than a scan for
adware/spyware and malware crap that suggests it's rather badly
written and at least as vulnerable to driveby downloads as IE (Opera
is protected only to the tune of 43 bad plugins).

Also Opera is faster than IE6 which is the fastest of all the later
versions of IE.

I'll give it a try then....


I've been able to play
the video. The youtube one _is_ a low res version (240p) of this one
which appears, at a guess (unable to determine the resolution settings
actually used) to be SD, probably 576 x 704.

Interestingly, the version of Flash seems to be 11.xx.xx so I'm
surprised I couln't get it to play in win2k (perhaps it's the java
that's not up to snuff - there's a sizable chunk of java script
embedded in that 'video' to make it a "Man for all seasons" affair to
cover everything from smart TV playabck to smartphone playback - pity
they didn't consider win2k playback).

I know we've had this issue re WIN2K before but do you really think that
people should worry re compatibility with a system that should have been
retired now a while ago?.

No, I've given up on that forlorn hope many years ago. My problem is
that none, absolutley none of the later versions of NT were palatable
replacements to make retirement of win2k a sensible option. Not even
today but Linux Mint with VirtualBox looks to be about the only
practical way to avoid the worse excesses of Microsoft OS
developments.


Even I've scrapped our Win 2 K machines with some regret but it all
moves on.

It certainly does. In my case the host OS _isn't_ going to be a
Microsoft product when I next upgrade the hardware beyond win2k's
reach in about a year's time.

If it already isn't there..


Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks...

Just as you might well expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...


--
Tony Sayer

/ Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks... Just as you might well expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...

--Tony Sayer/q

FSV of works...

Jim K

On 12/06/2014 19:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
Much like the copper chopper here then. They frequently buzz around here
at all hours with some sort of floodlight on. It's quite intimidating,
and enough to make small children woken up by them cry.

A few years ago I started to find the police helicopter caused me pain
in my ears - albeit not severe. Has largely resolved now but was very
unpleasant when the damn thing hovered around at very low altitude and
for many minutes.

--
Rod

In article , Jethro_uk
scribeth thus
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:44:43 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 09/06/2014 09:48, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 9 Jun 2014 07:03:29 GMT, Huge wrote:

we get rather spoiled.

Not sure I'd like that much noise. We get fast jets through here close
enough to see the pilots at times. They are loud but up, past and gone
in less than a minuet. Chinooks just make the windows rattle, Black
Hawks nervous, having no real requirement to be streamlined, they just
look like the killing machines they are.

I was in a friends back garden a couple of years back and a pair of
Apache gunships flew over...

I really would not want to be anywhere near those when they are doing
what they are designed for. Not only do they look evil, they well and
truly sound it as well! I can quite understand why your average Afghani
insurgent would loathe them so much.

Much like the copper chopper here then. They frequently buzz around here
at all hours with some sort of floodlight on. It's quite intimidating,
and enough to make small children woken up by them cry.

Then we read their twitter feed, usually telling us they couldn't find
the car/person/whatever they were looking for.


I remember one night there're radio Broke thru on my scanner receiver
years ago they were trying to identify someone on the ground and had a
few bobbies chasing this suspect with a coupe of police dogs. They just
picked the part of Cambridge thats full of doggie lovers and the
resulting mess on the radio was as good as what the keystone cops could
have got up to;!.

It was shall we say very difficult for the chopper observers to tell who
was the police and who was Joe public out with his dog....

--
Tony Sayer

In article , JimK
scribeth thus
/ Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks... Just as you might well
expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...

--Tony Sayer/q

FSV of works...

Jim K

Yep ticks tickety boo;!..

I like this Opera one 'tho/?...
--
Tony Sayer

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:07:13 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , JimK
scribeth thus
/ Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks... Just as you might well
expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...

--Tony Sayer/q

FSV of works...

Jim K

Yep ticks tickety boo;!..

I like this Opera one 'tho/?...

Am I to take it that you've actually installed Opera 12.16?

If so, you need to know its default setup is a little kakameemee imo.
I suspect you might like it more when you press the "Opera" button
just below 'File' on the extreme LHS of the toolbar and click on the
'Show Menu Bar' 2nd item up from the bottom of that dropdown list.

After that, click on view and move the cursor to the 'Toolbars' and
slide across to select and enable Panels, Main Bar, Address Bar and
the Navigation Bar in turn until you have a more bog standard
complement of toolbars.

After that, from 'Tools' select preferences at the bottom of that
list (or just press CTRL+ F12) so you can change its startup
behaviour.

What I normally do is to google for wikipedia and go to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page before setting my homepage
preference so that I can change the default 'continue from last time'
to 'start with homepage' and click the Use Current button to set it to
wikipedia. You can use the same routine if you wish to set a homepage
of your choosing.

I've got this routine off to a fine art after installing the one and
only web browser I can trust to do the right thing with PCs brought in
for repair. I reckon my customers can handle the idea that there's no
need to do something so stupid as to set the homepage to google.co.uk
when the default search engine is already set for google (such default
being adjustable to any search engine of your choosing). In any case,
the wikipedia page is as close as you'll get to a page devoid of fancy
advertising and other annoyances.

Another thing you might want to do is reprogram the default Speed
Dial boxes to useful websites or simply blank them out. I've got the
first four programmed to bleb.org's BBC1 through to BBC4 TV schedules
and the next 4 to the actual BBC TV schedule pages (the ninth is left
blank).

Strictly speaking I could leave them all blank and just create a
bleb.org and a BBCTV folder in the bookmarks list with each of the 4
shortcuts stored there (I've already done this for the BBC TV listings
pages which lets me open all folder items in one go).

Another nice feature is the excellent download manager which will
start buffering the download as soon as you've pressed the first save
button that takes you to the 'save to' dialogue box where you can
decide on the destination of the downloaded file if you don't want to
use the last location.

If you're downloading a CD iso's worth from a fast site, you can take
your time browsing and even creating new folders safe in the knowledge
that you're not holding up the download process as is the case with IE
(I'm not sure about FF - I suspect it does the same, so nothing new to
you but you're welcome to advise me if it is otherwise :-).
--
J B Good

On 12/06/2014 14:16, John Rumm wrote:
I think even the argies admit that the Belgrano was a legit target...

The problem I saw at the time was not the action, but the words. Had the
PM said "Yes, it might have been steaming away at the moment we attacked
but it could have turned round at any time. It was still a a threat."
Whereas we got untruths and confusion.

--
Rod

On 13/06/2014 07:15, polygonum wrote:
On 12/06/2014 14:16, John Rumm wrote:
I think even the argies admit that the Belgrano was a legit target...

The problem I saw at the time was not the action, but the words. Had the
PM said "Yes, it might have been steaming away at the moment we attacked
but it could have turned round at any time. It was still a a threat."
Whereas we got untruths and confusion.


It was zigzaging like combat ships do.

On 13/06/2014 02:07, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:07:13 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , JimK
scribeth thus
/ Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks... Just as you might well
expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...

--Tony Sayer/q

FSV of works...

Jim K

Yep ticks tickety boo;!..

I like this Opera one 'tho/?...

Am I to take it that you've actually installed Opera 12.16?

If so, you need to know its default setup is a little kakameemee imo.
I suspect you might like it more when you press the "Opera" button
just below 'File' on the extreme LHS of the toolbar and click on the
'Show Menu Bar' 2nd item up from the bottom of that dropdown list.


I gave up with Opera when they removed the Home button. Have they
reinstated it yet? Other than that it used to be my regular browser.

Snipped...


If you're downloading a CD iso's worth from a fast site, you can take
your time browsing and even creating new folders safe in the knowledge
that you're not holding up the download process as is the case with IE
(I'm not sure about FF - I suspect it does the same, so nothing new to
you but you're welcome to advise me if it is otherwise :-).

Yes done all that as suggested above thanks...
--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:29:26 +0100, Andrew May
wrote:

On 13/06/2014 02:07, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:07:13 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , JimK
scribeth thus
/ Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks... Just as you might well
expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...

--Tony Sayer/q

FSV of works...

Jim K

Yep ticks tickety boo;!..

I like this Opera one 'tho/?...

Am I to take it that you've actually installed Opera 12.16?

If so, you need to know its default setup is a little kakameemee imo.
I suspect you might like it more when you press the "Opera" button
just below 'File' on the extreme LHS of the toolbar and click on the
'Show Menu Bar' 2nd item up from the bottom of that dropdown list.


I gave up with Opera when they removed the Home button. Have they
reinstated it yet? Other than that it used to be my regular browser.

That sounds like the crap version based around the "latest fad" web
rendering engine (versions 20 something). If you want the 'real deal'
stick with v 12.16 for now until the devs at Opera 'see the light' and
go back to what they do best.
--
J B Good

In article , Johny B Good
scribeth thus
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:29:26 +0100, Andrew May
wrote:

On 13/06/2014 02:07, Johny B Good wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:07:13 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , JimK
scribeth thus
/ Played here fine on a WIN 7 machine thanks... Just as you might
well
expect. :-)

Well it just works;!...

--Tony Sayer/q

FSV of works...

Jim K

Yep ticks tickety boo;!..

I like this Opera one 'tho/?...

Am I to take it that you've actually installed Opera 12.16?

If so, you need to know its default setup is a little kakameemee imo.
I suspect you might like it more when you press the "Opera" button
just below 'File' on the extreme LHS of the toolbar and click on the
'Show Menu Bar' 2nd item up from the bottom of that dropdown list.


I gave up with Opera when they removed the Home button. Have they
reinstated it yet? Other than that it used to be my regular browser.



That sounds like the crap version based around the "latest fad" web
rendering engine (versions 20 something). If you want the 'real deal'
stick with v 12.16 for now until the devs at Opera 'see the light' and
go back to what they do best.

Thats why Firebox now has an add on to remove the chrome whizzy look to
it;!(...
--
Tony Sayer

On 13/06/2014 07:15, polygonum wrote:
On 12/06/2014 14:16, John Rumm wrote:
I think even the argies admit that the Belgrano was a legit target...

The problem I saw at the time was not the action, but the words. Had the
PM said "Yes, it might have been steaming away at the moment we attacked
but it could have turned round at any time. It was still a a threat."
Whereas we got untruths and confusion.

Yup, she was uncharacteristically mealy mouthed about it at the time.
"We decided it was a threat and sunk it, and I don't care where it was
headed" would have been adequate IMHO. ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/06/2014 19:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:44:43 +0100, John Rumm wrote:

On 09/06/2014 09:48, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 9 Jun 2014 07:03:29 GMT, Huge wrote:

we get rather spoiled.

Not sure I'd like that much noise. We get fast jets through here close
enough to see the pilots at times. They are loud but up, past and gone
in less than a minuet. Chinooks just make the windows rattle, Black
Hawks nervous, having no real requirement to be streamlined, they just
look like the killing machines they are.

I was in a friends back garden a couple of years back and a pair of
Apache gunships flew over...

I really would not want to be anywhere near those when they are doing
what they are designed for. Not only do they look evil, they well and
truly sound it as well! I can quite understand why your average Afghani
insurgent would loathe them so much.

Much like the copper chopper here then. They frequently buzz around here
at all hours with some sort of floodlight on. It's quite intimidating,
and enough to make small children woken up by them cry.

Your average cop chopper sounds nothing like an Apache though!



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.236...
wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:34:03 GMT, DerbyBorn
wrote:


(The RAF bod seemed not to have cottoned on that would not impress
teenagers whose trannies were in regular use for Radio Caroline.)

And todays Teenagers can see them on the Eurovision Song Contest.

G.Harman


Nowadays it is hard to impress any teenagers as they have little
interest in anything mechanical. They are more impressed by Apple
introduding a new colour for the iPad. They have little concept of the
struggle to make things work.
Less opportunity to take things apart partly to blame as well as not
so many mechanical things to observe. I can recall being fascinated by
the cogs on my Grans mangle,must have been about 3 years old and was
told "don't put your fingers on those"
An Auto washing machine is a bit boring in comparison .
There is hope though,My Nephew was steadily going along the flow of
the school system Secondary education sixth form college aim for
University without really knowing why. Some years ago I dumped all my
old stuff from our loft on him which included a train set and he got
an unfashionable interest in railways. Joined the junior section of
one of the preserved ones and found that metal work was more
interesting than shoveling coal and was taught by an experienced bloke
to cut, weld use a plasma cutter etc . This stood in him in good stead
when it was decided that hanging in to qualify for university was not
appropriate due to lack of interest so he applied for an engineering
apprenticeship instead.
Got offered a place on his first interview which is quite an
achievement now days. His " Hobby" with an ability to show work done
plus a reference from the railway was invaluable.
The interview was no pushover taking about 5 hours with team building
exercises,making a presentation ,solving problems and exhibiting
examples of ones work.

G.Harman



Very encouraging. I too was fascinated by a mangle. Eventually I got
interested in using gears and pulleys on my Meccano set and made a range
of daft devices.
Interviews. Any candidate who can express some enthusiasm for
something practical (rather than Xbox and football) is likely to become
a good trainee.


Is that playing football or watching football? There is a difference.

--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in news:lnhksk$keg$1@dont-
email.me:

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.236...
wrote in
:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:34:03 GMT, DerbyBorn
wrote:


(The RAF bod seemed not to have cottoned on that would not impress
teenagers whose trannies were in regular use for Radio Caroline.)

And todays Teenagers can see them on the Eurovision Song Contest.

G.Harman


Nowadays it is hard to impress any teenagers as they have little
interest in anything mechanical. They are more impressed by Apple
introduding a new colour for the iPad. They have little concept of
the
struggle to make things work.
Less opportunity to take things apart partly to blame as well as not
so many mechanical things to observe. I can recall being fascinated
by
the cogs on my Grans mangle,must have been about 3 years old and was
told "don't put your fingers on those"
An Auto washing machine is a bit boring in comparison .
There is hope though,My Nephew was steadily going along the flow of
the school system Secondary education sixth form college aim
for
University without really knowing why. Some years ago I dumped all
my
old stuff from our loft on him which included a train set and he got
an unfashionable interest in railways. Joined the junior section of
one of the preserved ones and found that metal work was more
interesting than shoveling coal and was taught by an experienced
bloke
to cut, weld use a plasma cutter etc . This stood in him in good
stead
when it was decided that hanging in to qualify for university was
not
appropriate due to lack of interest so he applied for an engineering
apprenticeship instead.
Got offered a place on his first interview which is quite an
achievement now days. His " Hobby" with an ability to show work done
plus a reference from the railway was invaluable.
The interview was no pushover taking about 5 hours with team
building
exercises,making a presentation ,solving problems and exhibiting
examples of ones work.

G.Harman



Very encouraging. I too was fascinated by a mangle. Eventually I got
interested in using gears and pulleys on my Meccano set and made a
range
of daft devices.
Interviews. Any candidate who can express some enthusiasm for
something practical (rather than Xbox and football) is likely to
become
a good trainee.


Is that playing football or watching football? There is a difference.


Agreed - running a team preferably

"ARW" writes:

"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
. 92.236...
wrote in
:

Very encouraging. I too was fascinated by a mangle. Eventually I got
interested in using gears and pulleys on my Meccano set and made a range
of daft devices.
Interviews. Any candidate who can express some enthusiasm for
something practical (rather than Xbox and football) is likely to become
a good trainee.


Is that playing football or watching football? There is a difference.

If you listen to the watchers, they usually seem to feel that they
could have played far better! (Especially without the ref.)


--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.


I watched on doing a bombing run at a range off the coast of the Isle of
Man. First up was an American jet, which came in fast and low and missed
the target barge by hundreds of yards. Next was a Vulcan, just visible
as a spot in the sky. When it went vertical, the range master said the
bomb had been released. A while later, the splash wetted the target barge.

--
Colin Bignell