 | | Re: Forced refresh of html pages instead of getting them from browser cache
|
|
(...) Technically, yes - you should be using the HTTP "Expires:" header. (24 years ago, 1-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Tactical nukes (was: Real Pics Of New Mecha)
|
|
(...) LOL! "Military intelligence" hard at work. :-, In Starship Troopers (and Ogre/G.E.V.) anyway, this is addressed by the radiation suits the troops wore (as you later note). At some point in the book, when they need to penetrate an area (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Tactical nukes (was: Real Pics Of New Mecha)
|
|
LOL! Good ones, Mark and Jeremy! Hmmm... Here in my universe, Spamnium is too powerful for our reactors to bear... Just last week 12 colonies were whipped-out when one reactor went critical! Damn spam, wish we never even mined it! ;-) Mladen (...) (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Tactical nukes (was: Real Pics Of New Mecha)
|
|
(...) Sure. Look at the USMC...they _issued_ (to the div. level) 1.5kt nukes, that were man portable. Only one little problem...the rocket propelling the nuke had a range of about 2km, and the radiation was lethal at about 2.5km... (...) @22 lbs (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Tactical nukes (was: Real Pics Of New Mecha)
|
|
(...) We at Sproat Labs tried working with Spamnium (including its dirivatives Spamtomium, Spamitillium, and the dreaded Twice-Baked Spamcake), but it emitted so many bogon particles that we quickly exhausted our reserves of Fruitcake shielding... (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Tactical nukes (was: Real Pics Of New Mecha)
|
|
I can't speak for Tom in this matter, but I've heard that Spamnium is a pretty powerful explosive source. ^__^ ~M (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Tactical nukes (was: Real Pics Of New Mecha)
|
|
(...) They're in the book, too. Some of the MI had Y-racks on their backs from which they could lob several tac-nukes to either side. Heinlein doesn't specifically mention yield, but it's inferred that the lethal radius of the blast is well below (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: visual confirmation
|
|
(...) Looks like MSIE at home does. I'm not so sure at work. One problem is that sometimes the system can be sufficiently loaded down that the GUI doesn't respond (this is really bad with the Windows Terminal Server which I use to get access to (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | visual confirmation
|
|
(...) Hmm...doesn't your browser give you an hourglass or wristwatch cursor right away and update its status area at the bottom with a message saying that it's contacting the server? --Todd (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
|
(...) Dunno. Don't have NS installed, currently. If I remember, I'll snarf it and check. Steve (24 years ago, 28-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
|
I just tried a Mozilla nightly (not K-meleon, which doesn't currently work with Win95) on my PPro 180 system (the Linux numbers were from my PIII 450 at work) and it took 12 seconds to load. (Communicator 4.75 takes 4.) If K-meleon isn't much better (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
|
(...) Huh. How long does NS4 take, for comparison? (IE of course cheats, by loading a bunch of itself at system startup time. One of the advantages (all other concerns aside) of tight OS integration.) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
|
(...) It's about 10 seconds to launch K-Meleon. That's after I've launched and relaunched a few times, so most of the files should be in the disk-cache. I've got a tempermental Gateway e-4200. That's a PII 400MHz, with 128MB RAM. Typical hard-drive. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
|
(...) Like how long of a load time? Mozilla seems to take long (15 seconds?) to load the first time I run it (per user) after building, but then takes 4-6 seconds. Perhaps K-Meleon has this property too. (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: hey ms windows folks
|
|
(...) I downloaded it, fired off a few pages into it. It looks ok, but I haven't exactly tested it *rigorously*. I was a bit disappointed about the load-time. The whole push for this thing (reading the website lit) is the lightweightedness of it. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | hey ms windows folks
|
|
Hey, has anyone checked out K-Meleon? How is it? (URL) (24 years ago, 24-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: I cannot connect to LDRAW.ORG - plz help!!!
|
|
Dan: (...) It is. There are 33 hops to www.ldraw.org (see below). (...) Yes, but how can you change it? (...) [...] (...) [...] (...) I did a traceroute from a machine in Copenhagen: alf$ traceroute www.ldraw.org traceroute to www.ldraw.org (...) (24 years ago, 21-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: I cannot connect to LDRAW.ORG - plz help!!!
|
|
I wonder if it's just too many hops? I can get there, takes me 29 hops... Isn't the default TTL for tcp/ip set for 30? Dan (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: I cannot connect to LDRAW.ORG - plz help!!!
|
|
(Follow-up directed to ".geek"...) OK, since I was visiting my parents tonight anyway, I decided to run this traceroute at their place over their connection, since I could *not* access LDraw.ORG from their computer *either*. :-P This is what I got: (...) (24 years ago, 20-Aug-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
