 | | Re: laser Safety and cats
|
|
(...) Hey, you shouldn't say something like this in a geek group..:-) So, It's (extended?)ASCII 135(ç) and 128(Ç). Of course could be dependent to platform (must work in any Windows or DOS box in anyway). Just use the alt key and numeric keypad of (...) (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It's these guys: (URL). They've secretly taken over most of the internet. (24 years ago, 27-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) I'm a little confused about the caching issue. Are we talking about DNS caching, or some sort of in-between proxy cache? Or is it the browser cache? Initially I thought that we were talking about DNS lookups taking the most time... If the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Use (URL) or (URL). These are both on a fat pipe and don't use caching. (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) I've always hated it. Historically, the reason it uses Times Roman (or else the browser's default) rather than Courier (or whatever <PRE> results in) is because the default fixed-width font in both NN & MSIE on low-end 640x480 displays (common (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) OK, I put in links to that nine different ways -- each of (3 URLs) each of those with %3A substituted for : in the jump.cgi parameter, and without jump.cgi. Note: On the numeric raw-IP versions of the URLs, the webserver reports "No web site (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Sounds good in theory, but I confess I don't know one offhand that would be a good test. Large ones are likely to use caching weirdness and small ones may have thin pipes that might throw us off. Or so I surmise. Hmm... how about my firm? as (...) (24 years ago, 26-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) Yeah, I've got mixed feelings about that. :) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Ah. Let's try a different URL, then. You name it. And let's put in a raw IP address as well, so we can rule out DNS. --Todd (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) exact URL and hadn't flushed any caches. Don't forget, though, that this may not be the best test destination, since www.yahoo.com isn't a single DNS location, it's many, due to that technology whose name I can't remember... Akatomi? Doing a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
