tinyURL address for how long?

[dorayme]

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

 

[Nik Coughlin]

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

From the very top of the front page of their site:

By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that
will not break in email postings and never expires.

 

[dorayme]

From the very top of the front page of their site:

By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that
will not break in email postings and never expires.

Thanks, missed the obvious place to look... (Did you know that
this is the best sort of place to hide things? I make switches
for friends and family so folk can't steal their cars and I put
them in full view and so very hard to find, not what thieves
would expect...)

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for

Until tinyurl.com ceases to exist.

 

[dorayme]

From the very top of the front page of their site:

By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that
will not break in email postings and never expires.

just another thing... I have it as a toolbar link and it does not
say about this when I use it, but yes, on the home page! I guess
I am saying I am not any kind of schmuck, just a very particular
one....

But I am grateful to you, Nick.

 

[dorayme]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme


Until tinyurl.com ceases to exist.

Ah, you are saying that unlike God himself, tinyURL is not a
necessary being and can lose its existence without
contradiction... I take it, young Mark, that you wish me to go on
a bit about this? yes?

OK:

There are arguments by old Catholic scholars that go "Existence
is absolutely essential to the very idea of God. It would be
silly to think God does not exist, as silly as to suppose a cat
had no whiskers, fur or cat-like shape. It would be a
contradiction in terms. Cats, unicorns, parrots and tinyURLs on
the other hand are perfectly understandable as not existing, as
dead, as ex, as was, as not is, as used to be or indeed never was
- these could be a memory, a fantasy or whatever. But not God.
His existence is part of his essential nature. The idea of a
non-existent God is a silly idea. After all, the idea of God is
of a perfect being, how perfect would a non-existent God be?

[Note to Mr Pugh: I am totally drug free today. (where the hell
are you, I like your posts...?). Note to Blinky: How's this for
what you like to call "crap"? Did you read it anyway? Have I got
my "?" in the right places or any in the wrong places?]

 

[David]

Another place for short urls that don't expire is
http://snipit.info

 

[Toby Inkster]

His existence is part of his essential nature. The idea of a
non-existent God is a silly idea. After all, the idea of God is
of a perfect being, how perfect would a non-existent God be?

This is an old, and seriously flawed argument.

If I create the concept of a "perfect unicorn", then by the argument,
this perfect unicorn must exist, because non-existence is an
imperfection. Similarly, perfect minotaurs, perfect singing poodles,
perfect flying three-headed tigers and perfect billionaire philanthropist
pigs must all exist.

The only problem is that the argument assumes existence is a pre-requisite
for perfection. In reality, anything that exists can never be perfect.

For example, say anything that exists has a height. If that height is big,
then the object is too big to fit into my little gold box, so it can't be
perfect, because to be perfect it should be able to fit into my gold box.
If the height is small then the object is too small to see from a mile
away, so it's not perfect, because if it can't be seen from a mile off,
it's just not good enough!

So if God is defined as a perfect being, God cannot exist, as existence
implies imperfection.

So you are left with two possibilities:

- God does not exist; or
- God is not perfect.

(The latter of course fits in nicely with the problem of evil.)

 

[dorayme]

This is an old, and seriously flawed argument.

You are not wrong about this!

... the argument assumes existence is a pre-requisite
for perfection. In reality, anything that exists can never be perfect.

But on this specific thing, it is more complicated. There are a
few different strands of argument of this general sort. One of
them is about examining the concept closely and finding in it the
idea of a type of existence that is different to the existence of
ordinary things. If God exists, he does not exist in the same
sort of way to the way a brick exists. A brick could puff out of
existence, but it would be more than silly to suppose that God
had such a a precarious type of existence. His existence is much
more like the existence of classes or numbers, the prime between
6 and 9 could not just disappear or not be in the way that a
brick could disappear or not be. There is a quality of necessity
to Him, in the very idea of Him - so the theists say.

In the end, this fails, but not for nothing has it spawned such a
vast literature over the centuries, especially in the 1950s and
60s.

For example, say anything that exists has a height. If that height is big,
then the object is too big to fit into my little gold box, so it can't be
perfect, because to be perfect it should be able to fit into my gold box.

No, there is a scope problem here. Something can be perfect in
respect to certain parameters. Tables for tabular data. It is not
a mark against a hammer that it it fails miserably as a
screwdriver. It is not a mark against God that he is an obstacle
to a thief who has a sudden consciousness episode... But
existence - so it is claimed - is very much a relevant parameter.
God is the ground of all being and all that...

Ho hum...

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Toby Inkster

This is an old, and seriously flawed argument.

Agreed. It's like the Babel Fish. It proves God exists and so therefore
He doesn't.

For example, say anything that exists has a height.

But that is also a false assumption. What is the height of gravity?

So if God is defined as a perfect being, God cannot exist, as existence
implies imperfection.

Only with a limited view of existence.

 

[johnfowles]

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

May I, having just found and joined this eminent group, start by just
saying that I firstly discovered http://www.shorturl.com and some of
my links are now getting on for three years old and have always worked.
However I stopped using them for a while when they started charging a
buck or something to set up a forwarding URL (but before that it was
free and all my originals I have never had to pay anything for-It is
now free again) somewhat miffed I googled and selected
http://www.notlong.com, which has a simpler and quicker set up ritual.
Some of my links I have now duplicated in case I forget which one I
used to create it.
IMHO both are vastly superior to tinyurl , where the link you get will
be something unmemoriable like http://tinyurl.com/okyf
whereas both shorturl.com and notlong.com allow you to enter something
appropriate. for example I often use the fantastic internet archives
held by the "wayback machine"
and instead of bookmarking it or googling I simply type
wayback,notlong into my browser's address bar then hit control and
enter together to automatically (in Internet Exploder at least) add the
prefix and .com to get
http://www.wayback.notlong.com
which if you try it SHOULD open the required page:-
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Would you believe it Just when I wanted to show off it looks like
notlong.com is down
but possibly will work for you on the morrow
John Fowles
http://www.johnfowles.org.uk/
walks away with tail between his legs
I'll be back to read more here and later to introduce an innovative
range of HTML tutorials that I am working on for your criticisms etc.

 

[johnfowles]

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

May I, having just found and joined this eminent group, start by just
saying that I firstly discovered http://www.shorturl.com and some of
my links are now getting on for three years old and have always worked.
However I stopped using them for a while when they started charging a
buck or something to set up a forwarding URL (but before that it was
free and all my originals I have never had to pay anything for-It is
now free again) somewhat miffed I googled and selected
http://www.notlong.com, which has a simpler and quicker set up ritual.
Some of my links I have now duplicated in case I forget which one I
used to create it.
IMHO both are vastly superior to tinyurl , where the link you get will
be something unmemoriable like http://tinyurl.com/okyf
whereas both shorturl.com and notlong.com allow you to enter something
appropriate. for example I often use the fantastic internet archives
held by the "wayback machine"
and instead of bookmarking it or googling I simply type
wayback,notlong into my browser's address bar then hit control and
enter together to automatically (in Internet Exploder at least) add the
prefix and .com to get
http://www.wayback.notlong.com
which if you try it SHOULD open the required page:-
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Would you believe it Just when I wanted to show off it looks like
notlong.com is down
but possibly will work for you on the morrow
John Fowles
http://www.johnfowles.org.uk/
walks away with tail between his legs
I'll be back to read more here and later to introduce an innovative
range of HTML tutorials that I am working on for your criticisms etc.

 

[johnfowles]

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

May I, having just found and joined this eminent group, start by just
saying that I firstly discovered http://www.shorturl.com and some of
my links are now getting on for three years old and have always worked.
However I stopped using them for a while when they started charging a
buck or something to set up a forwarding URL (but before that it was
free and all my originals I have never had to pay anything for-It is
now free again) somewhat miffed I googled and selected
http://www.notlong.com, which has a simpler and quicker set up ritual.
Some of my links I have now duplicated in case I forget which one I
used to create it.
IMHO both are vastly superior to tinyurl , where the link you get will
be something unmemoriable like http://tinyurl.com/okyf
whereas both shorturl.com and notlong.com allow you to enter something
appropriate. for example I often use the fantastic internet archives
held by the "wayback machine"
and instead of bookmarking it or googling I simply type
wayback,notlong into my browser's address bar then hit control and
enter together to automatically (in Internet Exploder at least) add the
prefix and .com to get
http://www.wayback.notlong.com
which if you try it SHOULD open the required page:-
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Would you believe it Just when I wanted to show off it looks like
notlong.com is down
but possibly will work for you on the morrow
John Fowles
http://www.johnfowles.org.uk/
walks away with tail between his legs
I'll be back to read more here and later to introduce an innovative
range of HTML tutorials that I am working on for your criticisms etc.

 

[johnfowles]

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

May I, having just found and joined this eminent group, start by just
saying that I firstly discovered http://www.shorturl.com and some of
my links are now getting on for three years old and have always worked.
However I stopped using them for a while when they started charging a
buck or something to set up a forwarding URL (but before that it was
free and all my originals I have never had to pay anything for-It is
now free again) somewhat miffed I googled and selected
http://www.notlong.com, which has a simpler and quicker set up ritual.
Some of my links I have now duplicated in case I forget which one I
used to create it.
IMHO both are vastly superior to tinyurl , where the link you get will
be something unmemoriable like http://tinyurl.com/okyf
whereas both shorturl.com and notlong.com allow you to enter something
appropriate. for example I often use the fantastic internet archives
held by the "wayback machine"
and instead of bookmarking it or googling I simply type
wayback,notlong into my browser's address bar then hit control and
enter together to automatically (in Internet Exploder at least) add the
prefix and .com to get
http://www.wayback.notlong.com
which if you try it SHOULD open the required page:-
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Would you believe it Just when I wanted to show off it looks like
notlong.com is down
but possibly will work for you on the morrow
John Fowles
http://www.johnfowles.org.uk/
walks away with tail between his legs
I'll be back to read more here and later to introduce an innovative
range of HTML tutorials that I am working on for your criticisms etc.

 

[johnfowles]

johnfowles wrote in quadruplate:
it wasn't my fault honest I pressed post message then nowt happenned
dammit
I'll only press "post message" once this time honest guv!!

 

[dorayme]

johnfowles wrote in quadruplate:
it wasn't my fault honest I pressed post message then nowt happenned
dammit

What do you expect to happen? God to bellow down from the sky?

 

[Toby Inkster]

What is the height of gravity?

The amplitude of a gravitational wave?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_radiation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_radiation

But that's not really the point. The point is that anything that exists has a
certain set of properties. Some of these properties (such as height perhaps)
can be expressed numerically. It is almost inevitable that in some way that
number will be too high or too low for some pleasant result to occur -- as
per my previous example, too tall to fit in a particular gold box -- thus the
property cannot have a perfect value, so the thing that exists cannot be
perfect.

Taking gravity as an example, we can choose the strength of G, the gravitational
constant to be our numerical property. Clearly G is just a tiny bit stronger
than perfect for us earthlings as Earth is currently slowly edging towards the
sun and will probably (in a few billion years) spiral into it.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Toby Inkster

But that's not really the point. The point is that anything that exists has a
certain set of properties.

I suppose anything that exists will have some sort of properties, though
they aren't necessarily going to have the same properties as other
things.

Some of these properties (such as height perhaps)
can be expressed numerically.

Not necessarily. You're limiting your definition of existence to the
physical universe.

It is almost inevitable that in some way that
number will be too high or too low for some pleasant result to occur

A "pleasant" result is subjective.

You are imperfect, therefore perfection cannot be measured against your
preferences.

as
per my previous example, too tall to fit in a particular gold box -- thus the
property cannot have a perfect value, so the thing that exists cannot be
perfect.

Then it is your box (or your desire that the other object fit in it)
that is imperfect.

Taking gravity as an example, we can choose the strength of G, the gravitational
constant to be our numerical property. Clearly G is just a tiny bit stronger
than perfect for us earthlings as Earth is currently slowly edging towards the
sun and will probably (in a few billion years) spiral into it.

But we are not perfect, so the (im)perfection of G cannot be judged
against what we want.

To judge whether something is perfect, you must have a perfect standard
to compare it to.

 

[Ed Mullen]

You are imperfect, therefore perfection cannot be measured against your
preferences.

As are all things which I have encountered in the last 56 years. My
modus operandi, then, is to assume that perfection, while, perhaps,
desirable, is unattainable. Hence, I tend to the practical, a blend of
"what if," and "if only if." And then I choose (or punt, whichever suits
the cause) because, to do otherwise, specifies inertia. And that is, to
me, anathema.

Shortly and sweetly said: "Shit or get off the pot."

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Fear has its use but cowardice has none. - Mohandas Gandhi

 

[Toby Inkster]

To judge whether something is perfect, you must have a perfect standard
to compare it to.

I think that's a rather useless definition of perfection. Something that
is perfect should be judged perfect by all who perceive it.