|
05 Sep 12 - 07:24 AM (#3400350) Subject: Tech: is it slow From: Dave Hanson Is the Mudcat incredibly slow today or is it me ? Everywhere else runs OK. Dave H |
|
05 Sep 12 - 08:09 AM (#3400352) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Bee-dubya-ell No, it's a new feature. Gives you time to cook breakfast while the page is loading. How do you want your eggs? |
|
05 Sep 12 - 09:07 AM (#3400355) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: GUEST It's you, Dave. Mudcat hates you and is trying really hard to ruin things for you. |
|
05 Sep 12 - 09:24 AM (#3400360) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Hesk Dave, Yes, it is slow today. |
|
05 Sep 12 - 10:33 AM (#3400376) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: GUEST Really really sssssssssllllllllllllllloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwww |
|
05 Sep 12 - 10:39 AM (#3400377) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Rog Peek No, it's slower than that! Rog |
|
05 Sep 12 - 10:43 AM (#3400378) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: GUEST,leeneia For me, it's been slow for some days. However, my computer seems to be slowing down in general. |
|
05 Sep 12 - 12:29 PM (#3400393) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: JohnInKansas A couple of weeks ago, I lost all web connection for about 20 hours. Onboard Win7/IE9 diagnostics clearly indicated that it was "no connection from router to ISP," but my provider persisted in insisting that everything was working just fine. It was eventually confirmed that the ISP server (a relay to a DNS server) was unable to communicate with the next level due to a DDOS attack on DNS servers at my provider. My ISP insists, and released a press report, claiming that "only a few business customers were affected and the problem was resolved within 4 hours." My local problem was that it took them much of 2 days to clear the intermediate relay servers that went down because the couldn't get to the "Master DNS Server" for my ISP. This morning at about 4:00 AM local/5:00 AM mudcat time I found identical inability to connect, with identical diagnostics on my computer. I went to bed, and when I got back on some sites are slow but others appear normal. I speculate that another DNS Server DDOS annoyance has occured, and it will take a while for all the other relay servers that jammed up when they couldn't connect will take a couple of days to all get cleared. Whether you experience slow responses may depend on whether your connection to mudcat goes through a relay point that isn't recovered, and other connections may seem normal if they don't use that server. If that server is "close to mudcat" most people would see delays. If it's at their own end of the relay chain others would be less likely to suffer. Or it may just be mudcat. Whatever the reason, I'm seeing the "waiting for response from mudcat.org" for 30 - 40 seconds just to open a thread this morning. Mudcat has seemed a little slow for the past week or so, but usually with lags of less than 10-15 seconds. A couple of other sites have seemed to get through normally, except for the times that my local relay shut me down completely. It's possible that today it's a combination of mudcat being it's "usual somewhat slow" and with some people seeing some "much more slow" effect from general, possibly local, network problems that mudcat can't fix. John |
|
05 Sep 12 - 01:13 PM (#3400403) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Joe Offer Well, the word "slow" appears in three titles on the Forum Menu, so that's a good indication that the problem is universal. But yes, it's aggravatingly slow. Guess I'll go back to bed. -Joe- |
|
05 Sep 12 - 01:25 PM (#3400408) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: SunrayFC this site will end soon. Facebook is so easy. Fast and useable. |
|
05 Sep 12 - 01:53 PM (#3400422) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Joe_F I find that retrieving pages from the current list is reasonably fast (a few seconds), but searches are a trial of patience (something like a minute or two). |
|
05 Sep 12 - 01:54 PM (#3400423) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: John MacKenzie And really good at policing their threads to! As for the lyrics section, well; good isn't the word. |
|
05 Sep 12 - 01:55 PM (#3400425) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: John MacKenzie too :( |
|
05 Sep 12 - 02:38 PM (#3400437) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Dave Hanson It's ok now, it doesn't hate me after all. Dave H |
|
05 Sep 12 - 03:40 PM (#3400463) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: JohnInKansas Front page opened in 8 seconds, about as good as it gets, just now, and this thread was about 3 seconds. Regarding Facebook, I suppose anyone who doesn't feel they contribute something useful here would be welcome to go there. I don't go to Farcebook largely because they won't let me even see what it looks like, or give a useful description of its functions, unless I sign in and create an account that, according to others I do trust, is nearly impossible to remove if I decide I don't want to participate. And also: Most Facebook Apps Can Post Behind Your Back Chris Taylor: Mashable 04 Sept 2012 How many apps have you installed on Facebook? More importantly, how many of them could post something in your name right now, without your knowledge? Chances are, it's more than half of them. Privacy protection company Secure.me analyzed some 500,000 Facebook apps, and shared the results exclusively with Mashable. The biggest takeaways: 63% of those apps ask for the ability to post on your behalf — and 69% of them can grab your email address. "It has become second nature to connect various apps like Instagram, SocialCam, AngryBirds, CityVille, and Spotify to your Facebook ID," says Secure.me founder Christian Sigl. "You just click 'agree' without even really knowing what you are agreeing to. What you don't realize is that social apps linked to your Facebook profile can pretty much track your and your friends'> whole life. "It doesn't matter what your privacy settings are, the apps still get this information." What the app makers could do with that information beggars belief. Not only could they effectively hack your Timeline and sell your email address to any unscrupulous buyer — they're also potentially well on the way to stealing your identity. Some 30% of those apps know their users' birthdates, which would in theory allow them to uncover their social security numbers. The permission puts your friends at risk, too. According to Secure.me, 21% of apps — 1 in every 5 — can access the personal data of the user's friends including friends' birthdays, education and work history. Some 12% of the apps can grab your location information at will. Of course, few of us are concerned about the big name apps — the Instagrams, the Spotifys. These are companies that have won our trust. But big-name apps make up just a small portion of the 500,000 total. What do you really know about the maker of that personality test or music quiz you just posted to your Timeline? Part of the problem, as Sigl suggests, is the fact that there's no granularity here. You can't decide which permissions the app really needs, and which go beyond its remit. You can't give an app limited permission for a day or a week. And you can't impose your privacy settings as overarching rules that apps may never break. App permissions, right now, are one-size-fits-all. How many Facebook apps have you given permissions to? SEE ALSO: This App Knows More About Your Facebook Account Than You Do [And this one is apparently from a decently reputable company.] *** I'm sufficiently adept at making an ass of myself, without help from others claiming that my opinions coincide with their hallucinations. Have you ever bothered to read either a EULA or even a Privacy Policy Statement before installing something? I once attempted to read a complete EULA from a formerly reputable company (I won't give the name but its initals were A. D. O. B. E.) but I figured I should check the subsidiary EULAS "incorporated by citation." I made copies in one file so that I could actually read it all - in a single file. When I got to the 9th level of "included by citation" restrictions, I had 370+ page document, with still 142 "incudeds" at the last level. I gave up and decided I didn't have time to read it, but I may still have a copy if someone really wants to interpret it for me. You will have to promise a written report that I can have my lawyer review for me, before I'll waste my time looking for it. I can't be bothered with Farcebroken, and it's unlikely I'll ever have a page there; but if frivolity and superficiality are your things I (and maybe some others) won't be likely to miss you for long. We might cry for a moment or two, but we're mostly strong people accustomed to life's little disappointments. Of course anyone who wants to contribute, or who gets some value from what's here, will always (pretty much) be welcome back. John |
|
05 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM (#3400464) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: fat B****rd Seemzfasternow |
|
05 Sep 12 - 04:20 PM (#3400481) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Joe Offer Yes, it seems to be up to normal speed now. Facebook is very good for temporary stuff, and the Mudcat group in Facebook seems to be a very nice gathering place. Mudcat is much better for information that you want to be stored permanently - ever try to find something you posted at Facebook a year ago? Can it be done? -Joe- |
|
05 Sep 12 - 08:05 PM (#3400580) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: Bill D " Facebook is so easy. Fast and useable." And posts just sorta disappear after a few days... it's like smoke. Here I can still read what I wrote 15 years ago.... and with music topics, that is important, |
|
05 Sep 12 - 11:22 PM (#3400666) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: JohnInKansas ever try to find something you posted at Facebook a year ago? Can it be done? According to the publicity, when they came out with the "Timeline" crap anybody who wants to can see everything you've ever done on Facebook. But that was probably just advertising for the "new feature." Not that I don't trust Max (or myself), but my normal procedure when I post something here is to preview, correct, preview, correct, preview, get overconfident and post, open the thread to see what I posted, wish I'd corrected again, save page as *.mht. The last step, theoretically, means I have a copy of my own of at least every post I've made here, and the thread up to when I exhibited my brilliance, so that I can go back and find out how much smarter I used to be, and I can do it where nobody's looking at how embarrased I get when I see some of the ones from 9 or 10 years ago (or last week). Once in a while some other fool posts something that seems good enough to save, in a thread I didn't get into, so there are a few files of that sort stored separately, in case I might need to take another look; but most of the bright points that seemed to have "potential" are in threads that I saved anyway because of some dumb comment I made in them. The namesearch function here says I've made a little over 12,500 posts, but those were in only 5,550 threads, making me almost a "lurker" compared to a few here. (They know who they are.) John |
|
06 Sep 12 - 12:09 AM (#3400683) Subject: RE: Tech: is it slow From: katlaughing I think Spaw and I passed on that distinction year ago.**bg** |