>> From: CLeyson(a)aol.com
>> Thanks to AOL I can't turn this feature off :-(
> Yes, you can! I have posted numerous messages to this list (and others)
> from an AOL account in the past and never sent anything but plain text.
I must have missed your posts on the subject. This geek for one would like
to know.
Chris Leyson
Ok! Ok!
I goofed - it's 1987, not 1967...
There is one small hole in the plastic (1/2" round tear)
There is an Epyx Catalog included as a supplement.
(of course all the blow in cards are inside there too)
Keith Johnson wrote:
>> I have December 1967 inCider,
>
>
> That *would* be an interesting read. Maybe it has a spread on the Univac?
>
> :P
>
> Keifer
Ok! Ok!
I goofed - it's 1987, not 1967...
There is one small hole in the plastic (1/2" round tear)
There is an Epyx Catalog included as a supplement.
(of course all the blow in cards are inside there too)
Keith Johnson wrote:
>> I have December 1967 inCider,
>
>
> That *would* be an interesting read. Maybe it has a spread on the Univac?
>
> :P
>
> Keifer
>> Thanks to AOL I can't turn this feature off :-(
>
>Yes, you can! I have posted numerous messages to this list (and others)
>from an AOL account in the past and never sent anything but plain text.
The latest version of the AOL client for windows no longer offers a way
to turn of HTML email. HOWEVER, as long as you use STRICKTLY the defualt
AOL email text settings, and NEVER do any kind of formatting, then AOL
will still send plain text and not an inline HTML message.
If you have changed the default settings, you can reset them. Somewhere
in the AOL prefs is a button to reset them to defualt values.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
On December 16, Bill Bradford wrote:
> > > I have little doubt about the appropriateness... of your response.
> > > Care to say when its appropriate to own three S/390's?
> > It's wholly inappropriate. He should give one to me.
>
> No, you've already over-filled your Cray quota; you should have to give
> one of those away (like say, the EL98, to me..) before you can acquire
> any more "big balls" hardware. 8-)
Ahh, you THINK so. ;)
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
On December 16, Bill Bradford wrote:
> > That would be something I'd be up for trying...if I can find a chunk
> > of core of low enough density to trace the wiring in. There are some
> > nice low-density planes on eBay right now, but they are priced WAY too
> > high in my opinion.
>
> I've still got these two UNIBUS core planes (H215), but they're probably
> better suited for use in a DEC system instead of being deconstructed.
Yes...I will *not* deconstruct DEC core, unless it's nonfunctional
and unrepairable.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
> From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
> > Well, most of us (except for Tony) have areas that we are not expert
in, or
>
> Whereas I'm not an expert in any area, right???
Wrong. Accept a complement, okay? ;>)
> I am strongly of the opinion that you can't teach creativity. And thus
> you can't teach somebody to be a good programmer or a good electronic
> designer. Yes, there are things that such people need to know (and those
> can be taught, but equally good programmer/designers tend to be
> interested enough to teach themselves a lot of it).
OTOH, methodology certainly *can* be taught. Unfortunately, though, either
it isn't being taught, or the student just doesn't "get it." Some of the
crap I've seen which was written by CS degree-holders has been truly
mind-boggling due to a complete lack of structure or logic in the code.
> So I don't think there's _any_ correlation (or at most a very weak one)
> between qualifications and ability as a programmer/designer.
Agreed, absolutely.
> > Should programmers be licensed? Sure makes me wonder . . .
>
> I don't think so. I've seen enough 'qualified' people who I'd not trust
> anywhere near anything I owned. I've also met a few totally unqualified
> people who I'd be happy handing a toolkit to and letting them loose in my
> workshop, knowing that they'd do no real damage.
>
> And 'licenses' almost always come from 'qualifications' :-(
A test-based license is what I had in mind, but this raises all kinds of
problems (such as who designs and administers the exam, etc.) so in the end
it is probably better that the practitioners of the craft do the "weeding
out" themselves.
Personally, I'm glad to out of programming professionally, although it
remains a favorite hobby of mine. I just got so tired of having to explain
the difference between a "string" and a "character array" to some of these
folks . . . over and over . . . I could tell stories you probably wouldn't
believe, but the memory of them is causing me to lose my lunch so I think
I'd better just log off . . .
Glen
0/0
On December 16, ajp166 wrote:
> The older large ferrite core is easier to work with though
> much slower. The bigger cores produce a larger output
> when they switch but the cycle times are in the
> 3-5uS range. The later is helpful for demos as nothing
> is too fast.
I wonder if it would be possible (and practical) to use a
microcontroller, perhaps a PIC, to act as a core controller. Use the
A/D and D/A hardware to handle the drive and sense stuff, and do all
the timing in firmware...making it easily tweakable.
That would be something I'd be up for trying...if I can find a chunk
of core of low enough density to trace the wiring in. There are some
nice low-density planes on eBay right now, but they are priced WAY too
high in my opinion.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
St. Petersburg, FL "Less talk. More synthohol." --Lt. Worf
>Well, I suppose every chip must aspire to mediocrity. :-P
Ok... I guess it took another Mac user to see my point.
I didn't doubt for a moment that the AMD chip was fully compatible with
any other Intel compat OS or software... just that it was REALLY REALLY
sad that they had to stamp it with windows propaganda as if windows was
the only thing out there that mattered.
-c
On Dec 16, 14:58, Gunther Schadow wrote:
> However, there are a few more issues to resolve first. The
> little 16-pole ribbon cable that has DIL chip-like plug on
> both ends that go into a chip-socket. That plug is bent and
> pins are broken off. Seems like that happnes all the time.
> Do I have to and if so how can I replace this? This cable
> runs between the backplane and, I guess, the limited function
> front panel.
Assuming you can afford to shorten the length of the cable by the amount
you'd lose by cutting off the DIL plug, it shouldn't be too hard. You can
buy 16-pin IDC DIL plugs quite easily. The quick-and-dirty way to crimp
one onto the cable is to take a piece of wood (metal is better but much
more work) and shave it so it fits neatly between the pins, and then shave
it down so it's the same depth as the pins are long. Place the cable in
the plug, insert the whole lot in a smal vice and gently tighten it up.
The piece of wood will prevent the pins from bending while you do this.
> Do I need this, is the limited function front panel needed
> at all? What's the function of the 16 lines, I assume
I don't know. If you'd asked this a week or two ago, I might have been
able to look it up in the PDP-8/A handbook I had on loan, but I've returned
it. :-( I think you do need some of the switches, but I'm not sure.
Have you looked at the print sets on some of the PDP-8 websites? David
Gesswein's page at http://www.pdp8.net/query_docs/query_all.html is a good
place to start. More specifically, follow the link labelled "244" from
there, then "245" and you'll be able to download a 1-page diagram of the
Limited Function Board.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
