tinyURL address for how long?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by dorayme, May 31, 2006.

  1. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    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?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. dorayme

    Nik Coughlin Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Nik Coughlin, May 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <e5iks8$h4j$>,
    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > 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.


    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...)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 31, 2006
    #3
  4. dorayme

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for


    Until tinyurl.com ceases to exist.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Mark Parnell, May 31, 2006
    #4
  5. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <e5iks8$h4j$>,
    "Nik Coughlin" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > 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.


    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
     
    dorayme, May 31, 2006
    #5
  6. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1f8nytz5p7zyt$>,
    Mark Parnell <> wrote:

    > Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
    > <> declared in alt.html:
    >
    > > Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for

    >
    > 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?]

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, May 31, 2006
    #6
  7. dorayme

    David Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    >>
    >>> Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for

    >> Until tinyurl.com ceases to exist.



    Another place for short urls that don't expire is
    http://snipit.info
     
    David, May 31, 2006
    #7
  8. dorayme

    Toby Inkster Guest

    dorayme wrote:

    > 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.)

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, May 31, 2006
    #8
  9. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article <5n.co.uk>,
    Toby Inkster <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    > > 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.
    >


    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...

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 1, 2006
    #9
  10. dorayme

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Toby Inkster
    <> declared in alt.html:
    > dorayme wrote:
    >
    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Mark Parnell, Jun 1, 2006
    #10
  11. dorayme

    johnfowles Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > 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?
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    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, Jun 1, 2006
    #11
  12. dorayme

    johnfowles Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > 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?
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    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, Jun 1, 2006
    #12
  13. dorayme

    johnfowles Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > 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?
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    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, Jun 1, 2006
    #13
  14. dorayme

    johnfowles Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > 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?
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    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, Jun 1, 2006
    #14
  15. dorayme

    johnfowles Guest

    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!!
     
    johnfowles, Jun 1, 2006
    #15
  16. dorayme

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "johnfowles" <> wrote:

    > 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?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Jun 1, 2006
    #16
  17. dorayme

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Jun 1, 2006
    #17
  18. dorayme

    Mark Parnell Guest

    Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Toby Inkster
    <> declared in alt.html:

    > 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.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
    http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
     
    Mark Parnell, Jun 2, 2006
    #18
  19. dorayme

    Ed Mullen Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:
    >
    > 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
     
    Ed Mullen, Jun 2, 2006
    #19
  20. dorayme

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Mark Parnell wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
     
    Toby Inkster, Jun 2, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Thomas Matthews
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,441
    tom_usenet
    Aug 2, 2004
  2. George Marsaglia

    Assigning unsigned long to unsigned long long

    George Marsaglia, Jul 8, 2003, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    685
    Eric Sosman
    Jul 8, 2003
  3. Daniel Rudy

    unsigned long long int to long double

    Daniel Rudy, Sep 19, 2005, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,200
    Peter Shaggy Haywood
    Sep 20, 2005
  4. Mathieu Dutour

    long long and long

    Mathieu Dutour, Jul 17, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    482
    santosh
    Jul 24, 2007
  5. Vincent Foley

    TinyUrl class

    Vincent Foley, Jun 1, 2005, in forum: Ruby
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    179
    Dominik Bathon
    Jun 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page