 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) But, reading lugnet on the web, it doesn't. -Shiri (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) Or, uh, e-mail and usenet news (like lugnet), which should *always* use fixed-width fonts. (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Fujita does it again! (was: Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ?)
|
|
(...) featuring Mr Fujita's LEGO Star Wars!! Their review: "The product of over 2,500 hours of monomaniacal determination, the Lego Star Wars Trilogy recreates 180 key scenes from the original series. Relive all of those magical moments through (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) both times. :) Dan (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) Not to mention that modern word processing software takes cares of inter-sentence spacing by itself. The typing of a second space is a wasted keystroke. (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) Well, not quite...I'm not ready to posit a cause-effect chain. I was merely trying to say that I couldn't fathom how the script itself could add anything more than a small fraction of a second. Slow DNS is one possible answer, but if it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
|
(...) It seems that slow DNS is the culprit if Todd is right. Why does cutting and pasting make it go faster? If Todd is right, you would have to pay the same DNS price either way. Or is it just a perceived speedup? Well, I've set FUT o-t.geek to (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) That's an out-dated concept taught by keyboarding instructors who were originally taught on fixed-width font systems e.g. typewriters. There is no longer a need to extend distances between the end of one sentence and the beginning of another, (...) (24 years ago, 25-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Figure This One Out... Kinda Neat
|
|
(...) Not generally true in common internet style. Furthermore, *defintely* not true when using proportionally-spaced fonts. With e-mail and news, everybody should be using a monospaced font, so using two spaces is acceptable [1], but if you're (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: laser Safety and cats
|
|
(...) Ya but yours contains characters I can't easily type! :-) ++Lar (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
