This calculates the average acceleration over the distance. What if the acceleration is not constant. As has been stated by another poster, steam catapults accelerate better at the start than at the end. What if the initial acceleration was 8.3g at the start and linearly declined to 4.3G at the end. The final velocity would be the same and the average acceleration would be the same but the stress on the aircraft and pilot would be higher.
Another poster touched on a valid point about jerk. Nothing instantaneously goes from at rest to 6.3g acceleration. There is a small space in time that the acceleration changes. By controlling that transition stress on the airframe and pilot is reduced.
Sometimes I wonder about the critical thinking that goes into/. posts.
Who will pay the billions of dollars to install all that fibre? No city I know has extra cash lying around to handle that. Cities are not in the business, and nor should they, of competing with private enterprise in delivering fibre to homes.
Have you ever heard the saying 'a chain is only as strong as the weakest link'? Even if the last mile was perfect, there are quite a few routers that a request goes through between the source and destination. These routers are are controlled by the big telcos. If at any of these points the request is delayed, rerouted or replaced there is still an issue. The entire route between the source and destination must be net neutral for there not to be an issue.
It does not matter how many net neutral last mile providers there are if they are feeding into the same compromised backbone.
I have to question the methodology of the "study". Of the 300 sites contacted only 45 wanted to talk. Of those 45 only 28 confirmed having been DDosed. Maybe the wanted to talk because they had been DDoSed thereby skewing the results in favour of a sensationalist article. I believe the statistics should be stated as at least 28 out of 300, or 10%, of sites contacted reported DDoS attacks; because that is all they have shown. Ten percent does not make as good a headline as 62%. The real number is probably somewhere between 10% and 62%.
Should users be regulated on how they use the Internet? No. Should providers be regulated on how they restrict users of the Internet? Yes.
Do you really want a Microsoft funded provider slowing down you Google searches to the extent that Google is unusable? Do you want a provider owned by one media conglomerate slowing down streaming video from everywhere else so that they are the only option? Do you want a provider black holeing requests for web sites they do not agree with? Do you want all your search requests re-directed to Bing?
Without regulation providers can make decisions on how customers interact with the Internet that are better for their bottom line and not necessarily for the customer's benefit.
There is a major flaw in the article's argument. They state that most people are fine with the way the Internet works now. That part is true as net neutrality is the norm right now. The flaw is what do we do when net neutrality is not the norm and people fell issues of providers restricting traffic? Do we regulate then? Isn't that a bit late? There is no problem with what providers are doing now; the problem is what they could, and some companies are trying to, do in the future.
There are also many transaction where someone receives money from a business; recycling bottles, pawn shops, garage sales, etc. Am I supposed to take a cheque, deposit it and wait for it to clear? Putting money into a bank account is more difficult than taking it out.
I also have a side crafting business. I am not do enough transactions to have a credit card account so accept cash. Even if I did there are other issues. The hardware and service fees to do wireless transaction is not cheap. Some locations are outside wireless coverage. Some people will not use wireless for financial transactions. How am I to do business without cash?
Electronic transactions are good for fixed point payments but there is still a huge cash economy.
50 and 100 dollar bills are not the norm. A customer can still pay with $5, $10 and $20 bills. If the failure rate of the circuits reaches say 50% then a store who insists on electronic verification is effectively refusing cash. No one is going to search through their wallets for bills that "work".
How many businesses are going to pay for a system that fails a significant amount of the time? There are simpler methods that are much more accurate.
All a counterfeiter has to do is say the circuit failed, as will happen often, and the system is defeated. Banks will have to accept 'failed' bills because the circuit is not 100% reliable. Every 'failed' bill will have to be destroyed thereby increasing the number of bills that need to be replaced and increasing the cost to the government. All current currency verification method used by banks are 100% accurate. A circuit that could 'fail' due to normal use is not accurate enough.
Further on the issue of cost. How much will it cost to print these new bills?
Sure, like many other 'good ideas', it can be done but the question is how economically viable is it.
An even more dangerous issue is iPod Haze. I was driving slowly through a parking lot in a noisy car looking for a parking spot. I scan to my left looking for a spot and forward to keep from hitting something. On one forward scan there appeared a girl directly in front of me. She was engrossed in her iPod. She had walked out of a side aisle from behind an suv without pausing or looking. I stopped in time and she continued on her merry way. I ended up in line behind her at the coffee shop and asked her if she knew that had I been going a bit faster she would have been run over. She never knew I was there.
When one has music blasting into one's ears a noisy car does not help.
90 verdicts does not seem to be a high number considering the number of cases in the US. How many verdicts were overturned due to juror misconduct that did not involve the internet? This is yet another sensationalist story.
The point is that if they have a question they ask the judge and not a possibly incorrect definition or other false, misleading, or legally disallowed information on the web. All information a juror gets about a case must come from the judge or the courtroom.
Does this look familiar to anyone. They have been around for years. It looks like the kid patented a minor change to an outdoor cover plate so the door opens perpendicular to the wall.
I really love one sided rhetoric and that utube video takes the cake. Sure all those things happened but they were not just random acts. For example, yes the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it was in response to a war started by Japan, remember Pearl Harbour? The next comment about not 'blinking en eye' is also false. The Japanese would not surrender and the US was faced with losing hundreds of thousands soldiers and even more Japanese civilians if they had to invade Japan to stop the war. They did 'blink an eye' but decided on the lesser of two evils. Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb.
Sure the US is not perfect but slamming them out of context like that is propaganda.
BYW, I am a Canadian who actually knows a little history.
No the charge was uttering threats which is against the law.
And I very much doubt that seeing the case get publicized would result in fewer jokes. Just ask the RIAA how succesful their campaign to scare the shit out of downloaders has been.
Bad analogy, the RIAA are civil suits this case is criminal law; the RIAA is suing unrelated to police involvement; the RIAA is suing about something a large portion of the population does, in this case it is one person so far. Fewer jokes? No Fewer threats? Maybe.
Feel free to vote for whoever seems most inclined to take your liberties away though. Just don't be surprised when a lot of folks disagree.
Since when has there been a "liberty" to utter threats? There are restrictions to freedom of speech and uttering threats is one of them.
He did commit a crime; uttering threats. It does not matter if it was going to be followed through or not; the threat was uttered. The outcome of the investigation was that he did utter a threat, was charged for that crime and convicted. He was not charged for causing the investigation.
How about this one:
Image= The downtrodden Palestinians being occupied by the genocidal Israelis. Reality: Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of an internationally recognized state while hiding behind the suffereing of their people who's leadership lives free in Syria.
Hamas is a the child of a war declared by The Arab States to eliminate the State of Israel (The State being created by the UN). They lost the war but still will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Their main goal is still to eliminate Israel. Check the Hamas Covenant articles 12 and 13. By article 13 they will not even negotiate a peace treaty.
I am not in complete agreement with everything Israel has done but what do you expect Israel to do when they are continually subjected to rocket attacks and suicide bombers? The Palestinians started it and the will not quit.
And while the two cops are "investigating" the 'joke' they are not investigating real crime. Have that happen enough and there could be a real issue. How about another scenario.
Scenario 6) Man is investigated, found guilty, individually fined a reasonable amount. Case get publicized. Fewer 'jokes" that need to be investigated get Tweeted. Fewer policemen get sent on wild goose chases. More real crime get investigated.
Who pays for the airport to determine if it is a threat? Who pays for the police to investigate and determine if it is a threat? The taxpayers of the UK. If you utter what could be a threat that costs money to verify that it is not a threat then you deserve to be fined for doing it. Paul Chambers caused the police to waste time and money investigating his stupidity instead of doing productive work.
As another poster stated, would you want to be the security official who ignored the tweet if the airport had been later bombed?
"147 line of code" which does not cover most of what we are talking about. Does your system handle hundreds of sites without hand editing a config file or script? Does your system monitor runs to see if they complete and figure out what to do if they do not? Does your system tell the difference between a no data timeout and a slow data timeout? Have you solved the problem of coordinating multiple wgets with host spanning? There may not be a solution or it may take a lot of code. I go back to the 80/20 rule; 80% of your code will be required to handle 20% of the issues.
The original poster posited that everything can be done using generic unix functions with a little glue. That is patently false considering that there are many features that are part of system requirements that are not covered by standard Unix calls.
To use the ingredient analogy. If wget is equivelant to a tomato and you change the wget code it is no longer a tomato but a genetically modified tomato that can only be used in that one recipie. It is now a ninth ingredient. Do that enough times and your ingredient list explodes.
The biggest failing of the Taco Bell analogy is that no matter how you combine the eight ingredients you still come up with crappy pseudo Mexican food; you do not create French Food, Itallian Food, Chineese food, etc. The same thing applies to Unix utilities; they do almost way you want but rarely everything.
So according to your solution we need the following: 1. Code to monitor processes, 2. Code to keep track of sites we are interested in 3. Code to launch wgets. 4. Code to parse error logs and handle errors 5. Code modifications to wget
That looks like quite a bit of code. Point 5 means that we are no longer using wget but our own version of wget.
The assumption that we are using a separate process for each host is invalid as when host spanning is used a crawl can jump from host to host.
It also does not fix the multi connection when host spanning is used. It also does not handle sites that we do not want to crawl that may be connected to sites that we do want to crawl.
Therefore wget + lots of code still does not cover everything we want to do.
Sure a system can use wget but there is still a great deal of code required around it to make things work. I am all for using system components where possible but sometimes they do not have the required functionality.
It is interesting that wget does not handle errors other than ignoring them and trying to continue. The original poster's first and second point are not addressed. Does that mean the operator has to manually monitor the crons and restart the ones that failed?
The site is really, really slow. Some sites will take half an hour to feed out a page.
And you still haven't looked at the wget(1) man page, or you'd know about the --read-timeout parameter.
Maybe they're overloaded. Maybe their denial of service detection software has tripped and is metering out bytes very slowly in defense. You don't want this to hold up the entire operation. Last week, for some reason, "orbitz.com" did that.
Not holding up your operation is why you use multiple tools that can run concurrently. A wget of orbitz.com taking forever won't prevent the wget of soggy.com that you scheduled for half an hour later, and neither will stop the parser. Of course, if you design an all-eggs-in-one-basket solution that depends on sequential operations, you deserve what you get.
How do you schedule orbitz.com to go off and then soggy.com to go off later? What of you are handling hundreds of different web sites? Hundreds of crons? How do you retry later on sites that are very slow at the moment? How would you know that wget timed out due to slow download?
The site doesn't return data at all. Some British university sites have a network implementation which, if asked for a HTTPS connection, does part of the SSL connection handshake and then just stops, leaving the TCP connection open but sending nothing. This requires a special timeout.
Yes, the --connect-timeout.
The connection has been made so it is not --connect-timeout it is --read-timeout. That is the problem, there is no different timeout when you are slowly getting data vs getting no data.
The site doesn't like too many simultaneous connections from the same IP address. We limit our system to three simultaneous connections to a given site, so as not to overload it.
wget limits to a single connection with keep-alive per instance. (If you want more, spawn more wget -nc commands)
You missed the point; it is not more connections it is limiting connections. Say I am crawling five different sites using host spanning and they all link to the same site. Since there is no coordination between the wgets it is possible for all of the to connect to the same site at the same time. What if I have 100 crawlers at the same time?
The original poster is right; using wget ignores errors (timesout) and does not report them so there is no way of programaticly figuring out what went wrong and react to it. Things wget does not do: avoid known non responsive pages, requeue requests that have timed out or log them so that are not tried again, coordinate multiple crawls so they do not hit the same server simultaneously, handle errors itself. There are probably more.
This is a perfect example of the 80/20 rule. The "solution" may cover 80% of the problem but that final 20% will require so much babysitting as to make it unusable. Wget is not an enterprise level web crawler.
Making themselves yet another Android vendor would give little reason for people to prefer their phones over somebody else's.
Different is not necessarily better. As a consumer I can buy a Droid phone and in the future buy another driod phone from another compatible manufacturer and still use the same apps. If I buy a Nokia, I am stuck buying Nokias if I want to use the same app. There is also the catch 22 of any new OS; Few apps are written because the install base in not high enough, Install base is low because there are few apps. iOS avoided that issue because they were the first on the block and every developer wanted to get on their band waggon. Android avoided that issue because there are enough people that are dissatisfied with Apple's closed system that an open system has a place. It sounds like MeeGoo will be just another closed system like iOS; one manufacturer, one app store, my way or the highway. MeeGoo will be behind iOS and Android forever causing every app publisher to make the decision whether or not to support a third OS. The answer to that question for many developers is no.
Also I find Nokia's approach interesting. Their distribution is a very standard looking one, and porting applications to it is extremely trivial. Anything that compiles on ARM will run outright, and only needs fixes to the UI. Lots of command line tools can be used without changes.
My first question is; how many people will be running command line tools on their phone? Second the code must run on an ARM so must be written for an ARM. Can I easily port my Android or iOS app to MeeGoo? I doubt that very much. Which means that I need to write apps for a third OS. Not a good decision if i can cover 95% of the current market buy supporting iOS and Android.
How can someone get a patent on an obvious implementation of a new standard, in this case 802.11? I wonder if Anthony Spearman or Andrew Tompkins had any access or input into the standard? I wonder if they were part of the standards process but realized they couldn't patent the standard so the patented the implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
This calculates the average acceleration over the distance. What if the acceleration is not constant. As has been stated by another poster, steam catapults accelerate better at the start than at the end. What if the initial acceleration was 8.3g at the start and linearly declined to 4.3G at the end. The final velocity would be the same and the average acceleration would be the same but the stress on the aircraft and pilot would be higher.
Another poster touched on a valid point about jerk. Nothing instantaneously goes from at rest to 6.3g acceleration. There is a small space in time that the acceleration changes. By controlling that transition stress on the airframe and pilot is reduced.
Sometimes I wonder about the critical thinking that goes into /. posts.
Who will pay the billions of dollars to install all that fibre? No city I know has extra cash lying around to handle that. Cities are not in the business, and nor should they, of competing with private enterprise in delivering fibre to homes.
Have you ever heard the saying 'a chain is only as strong as the weakest link'? Even if the last mile was perfect, there are quite a few routers that a request goes through between the source and destination. These routers are are controlled by the big telcos. If at any of these points the request is delayed, rerouted or replaced there is still an issue. The entire route between the source and destination must be net neutral for there not to be an issue.
It does not matter how many net neutral last mile providers there are if they are feeding into the same compromised backbone.
I have to question the methodology of the "study". Of the 300 sites contacted only 45 wanted to talk. Of those 45 only 28 confirmed having been DDosed. Maybe the wanted to talk because they had been DDoSed thereby skewing the results in favour of a sensationalist article. I believe the statistics should be stated as at least 28 out of 300, or 10%, of sites contacted reported DDoS attacks; because that is all they have shown. Ten percent does not make as good a headline as 62%. The real number is probably somewhere between 10% and 62%.
How many "DDoS attacks" were in reality too many real people trying to hit the site.
Should users be regulated on how they use the Internet? No.
Should providers be regulated on how they restrict users of the Internet? Yes.
Do you really want a Microsoft funded provider slowing down you Google searches to the extent that Google is unusable?
Do you want a provider owned by one media conglomerate slowing down streaming video from everywhere else so that they are the only option?
Do you want a provider black holeing requests for web sites they do not agree with?
Do you want all your search requests re-directed to Bing?
Without regulation providers can make decisions on how customers interact with the Internet that are better for their bottom line and not necessarily for the customer's benefit.
There is a major flaw in the article's argument. They state that most people are fine with the way the Internet works now. That part is true as net neutrality is the norm right now. The flaw is what do we do when net neutrality is not the norm and people fell issues of providers restricting traffic? Do we regulate then? Isn't that a bit late? There is no problem with what providers are doing now; the problem is what they could, and some companies are trying to, do in the future.
There are also many transaction where someone receives money from a business; recycling bottles, pawn shops, garage sales, etc. Am I supposed to take a cheque, deposit it and wait for it to clear? Putting money into a bank account is more difficult than taking it out.
I also have a side crafting business. I am not do enough transactions to have a credit card account so accept cash. Even if I did there are other issues. The hardware and service fees to do wireless transaction is not cheap. Some locations are outside wireless coverage. Some people will not use wireless for financial transactions. How am I to do business without cash?
Electronic transactions are good for fixed point payments but there is still a huge cash economy.
50 and 100 dollar bills are not the norm. A customer can still pay with $5, $10 and $20 bills. If the failure rate of the circuits reaches say 50% then a store who insists on electronic verification is effectively refusing cash. No one is going to search through their wallets for bills that "work".
How many businesses are going to pay for a system that fails a significant amount of the time? There are simpler methods that are much more accurate.
All a counterfeiter has to do is say the circuit failed, as will happen often, and the system is defeated. Banks will have to accept 'failed' bills because the circuit is not 100% reliable. Every 'failed' bill will have to be destroyed thereby increasing the number of bills that need to be replaced and increasing the cost to the government. All current currency verification method used by banks are 100% accurate. A circuit that could 'fail' due to normal use is not accurate enough.
Further on the issue of cost. How much will it cost to print these new bills?
Sure, like many other 'good ideas', it can be done but the question is how economically viable is it.
An even more dangerous issue is iPod Haze. I was driving slowly through a parking lot in a noisy car looking for a parking spot. I scan to my left looking for a spot and forward to keep from hitting something. On one forward scan there appeared a girl directly in front of me. She was engrossed in her iPod. She had walked out of a side aisle from behind an suv without pausing or looking. I stopped in time and she continued on her merry way. I ended up in line behind her at the coffee shop and asked her if she knew that had I been going a bit faster she would have been run over. She never knew I was there.
When one has music blasting into one's ears a noisy car does not help.
90 verdicts does not seem to be a high number considering the number of cases in the US. How many verdicts were overturned due to juror misconduct that did not involve the internet? This is yet another sensationalist story.
The point is that if they have a question they ask the judge and not a possibly incorrect definition or other false, misleading, or legally disallowed information on the web. All information a juror gets about a case must come from the judge or the courtroom.
Does this look familiar to anyone. They have been around for years. It looks like the kid patented a minor change to an outdoor cover plate so the door opens perpendicular to the wall.
You might want to read some history, http://www.ww2pacific.com/surrnote.html
Russia was not at war until after the first bomb was dropped. It would be difficult to surrender to a country one is not at war with.
Japan and Russia had no high level diplomatic contact. Japan actually tried to buy oil from Russia so they could continue the war.
It you can cite a credible reference as to a Japanese offer of surrender I would love to see it.
I really love one sided rhetoric and that utube video takes the cake. Sure all those things happened but they were not just random acts. For example, yes the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it was in response to a war started by Japan, remember Pearl Harbour? The next comment about not 'blinking en eye' is also false. The Japanese would not surrender and the US was faced with losing hundreds of thousands soldiers and even more Japanese civilians if they had to invade Japan to stop the war. They did 'blink an eye' but decided on the lesser of two evils. Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb.
Sure the US is not perfect but slamming them out of context like that is propaganda.
BYW, I am a Canadian who actually knows a little history.
Check the dictionary:
menaced, menacing, menaces
1. To utter threats against.
frighten (frtn)
v. frightened, frightening, frightens
v.tr. 1. To fill with fear; alarm.
Saying "boo" is frightening not menacing. Notice that, by definition, someone does not have to be frightened for menacing to occur.
Found guilty of what exactly, poor taste?
No the charge was uttering threats which is against the law.
And I very much doubt that seeing the case get publicized would result in fewer jokes. Just ask the RIAA how succesful their campaign to scare the shit out of downloaders has been.
Bad analogy, the RIAA are civil suits this case is criminal law; the RIAA is suing unrelated to police involvement; the RIAA is suing about something a large portion of the population does, in this case it is one person so far. Fewer jokes? No Fewer threats? Maybe.
Feel free to vote for whoever seems most inclined to take your liberties away though. Just don't be surprised when a lot of folks disagree.
Since when has there been a "liberty" to utter threats? There are restrictions to freedom of speech and uttering threats is one of them.
He did commit a crime; uttering threats. It does not matter if it was going to be followed through or not; the threat was uttered. The outcome of the investigation was that he did utter a threat, was charged for that crime and convicted. He was not charged for causing the investigation.
How about this one:
Image= The downtrodden Palestinians being occupied by the genocidal Israelis. Reality: Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of an internationally recognized state while hiding behind the suffereing of their people who's leadership lives free in Syria.
Hamas is a the child of a war declared by The Arab States to eliminate the State of Israel (The State being created by the UN). They lost the war but still will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Their main goal is still to eliminate Israel. Check the Hamas Covenant articles 12 and 13. By article 13 they will not even negotiate a peace treaty.
I am not in complete agreement with everything Israel has done but what do you expect Israel to do when they are continually subjected to rocket attacks and suicide bombers? The Palestinians started it and the will not quit.
Btw, Fatah is at least trying to be reasonable.
And while the two cops are "investigating" the 'joke' they are not investigating real crime. Have that happen enough and there could be a real issue. How about another scenario.
Scenario 6) Man is investigated, found guilty, individually fined a reasonable amount. Case get publicized. Fewer 'jokes" that need to be investigated get Tweeted. Fewer policemen get sent on wild goose chases. More real crime get investigated.
Who pays for the airport to determine if it is a threat? Who pays for the police to investigate and determine if it is a threat? The taxpayers of the UK. If you utter what could be a threat that costs money to verify that it is not a threat then you deserve to be fined for doing it. Paul Chambers caused the police to waste time and money investigating his stupidity instead of doing productive work.
As another poster stated, would you want to be the security official who ignored the tweet if the airport had been later bombed?
"147 line of code" which does not cover most of what we are talking about. Does your system handle hundreds of sites without hand editing a config file or script? Does your system monitor runs to see if they complete and figure out what to do if they do not? Does your system tell the difference between a no data timeout and a slow data timeout? Have you solved the problem of coordinating multiple wgets with host spanning? There may not be a solution or it may take a lot of code. I go back to the 80/20 rule; 80% of your code will be required to handle 20% of the issues.
The original poster posited that everything can be done using generic unix functions with a little glue. That is patently false considering that there are many features that are part of system requirements that are not covered by standard Unix calls.
To use the ingredient analogy. If wget is equivelant to a tomato and you change the wget code it is no longer a tomato but a genetically modified tomato that can only be used in that one recipie. It is now a ninth ingredient. Do that enough times and your ingredient list explodes.
The biggest failing of the Taco Bell analogy is that no matter how you combine the eight ingredients you still come up with crappy pseudo Mexican food; you do not create French Food, Itallian Food, Chineese food, etc. The same thing applies to Unix utilities; they do almost way you want but rarely everything.
So according to your solution we need the following:
1. Code to monitor processes,
2. Code to keep track of sites we are interested in
3. Code to launch wgets.
4. Code to parse error logs and handle errors
5. Code modifications to wget
That looks like quite a bit of code. Point 5 means that we are no longer using wget but our own version of wget.
The assumption that we are using a separate process for each host is invalid as when host spanning is used a crawl can jump from host to host.
It also does not fix the multi connection when host spanning is used. It also does not handle sites that we do not want to crawl that may be connected to sites that we do want to crawl.
Therefore wget + lots of code still does not cover everything we want to do.
Sure a system can use wget but there is still a great deal of code required around it to make things work. I am all for using system components where possible but sometimes they do not have the required functionality.
OK I'm wrong. So it is just another Android. The point is that it is not different from the two big players on the market today.
It is interesting that wget does not handle errors other than ignoring them and trying to continue. The original poster's first and second point are not addressed. Does that mean the operator has to manually monitor the crons and restart the ones that failed?
The site is really, really slow. Some sites will take half an hour to feed out a page.
And you still haven't looked at the wget(1) man page, or you'd know about the --read-timeout parameter.
Maybe they're overloaded. Maybe their denial of service detection software has tripped and is metering out bytes very slowly in defense. You don't want this to hold up the entire operation. Last week, for some reason, "orbitz.com" did that.
Not holding up your operation is why you use multiple tools that can run concurrently. A wget of orbitz.com taking forever won't prevent the wget of soggy.com that you scheduled for half an hour later, and neither will stop the parser.
Of course, if you design an all-eggs-in-one-basket solution that depends on sequential operations, you deserve what you get.
How do you schedule orbitz.com to go off and then soggy.com to go off later? What of you are handling hundreds of different web sites? Hundreds of crons? How do you retry later on sites that are very slow at the moment? How would you know that wget timed out due to slow download?
The site doesn't return data at all. Some British university sites have a network implementation which, if asked for a HTTPS connection, does part of the SSL connection handshake and then just stops, leaving the TCP connection open but sending nothing.
This requires a special timeout.
Yes, the --connect-timeout.
The connection has been made so it is not --connect-timeout it is --read-timeout. That is the problem, there is no different timeout when you are slowly getting data vs getting no data.
The site doesn't like too many simultaneous connections from the same IP address. We limit our system to three simultaneous connections to a given site, so as not to overload it.
wget limits to a single connection with keep-alive per instance. (If you want more, spawn more wget -nc commands)
You missed the point; it is not more connections it is limiting connections. Say I am crawling five different sites using host spanning and they all link to the same site. Since there is no coordination between the wgets it is possible for all of the to connect to the same site at the same time. What if I have 100 crawlers at the same time?
The original poster is right; using wget ignores errors (timesout) and does not report them so there is no way of programaticly figuring out what went wrong and react to it.
Things wget does not do: avoid known non responsive pages, requeue requests that have timed out or log them so that are not tried again, coordinate multiple crawls so they do not hit the same server simultaneously, handle errors itself. There are probably more.
This is a perfect example of the 80/20 rule. The "solution" may cover 80% of the problem but that final 20% will require so much babysitting as to make it unusable. Wget is not an enterprise level web crawler.
Making themselves yet another Android vendor would give little reason for people to prefer their phones over somebody else's.
Different is not necessarily better. As a consumer I can buy a Droid phone and in the future buy another driod phone from another compatible manufacturer and still use the same apps. If I buy a Nokia, I am stuck buying Nokias if I want to use the same app.
There is also the catch 22 of any new OS; Few apps are written because the install base in not high enough, Install base is low because there are few apps. iOS avoided that issue because they were the first on the block and every developer wanted to get on their band waggon. Android avoided that issue because there are enough people that are dissatisfied with Apple's closed system that an open system has a place. It sounds like MeeGoo will be just another closed system like iOS; one manufacturer, one app store, my way or the highway. MeeGoo will be behind iOS and Android forever causing every app publisher to make the decision whether or not to support a third OS. The answer to that question for many developers is no.
Also I find Nokia's approach interesting. Their distribution is a very standard looking one, and porting applications to it is extremely trivial. Anything that compiles on ARM will run outright, and only needs fixes to the UI. Lots of command line tools can be used without changes.
My first question is; how many people will be running command line tools on their phone?
Second the code must run on an ARM so must be written for an ARM. Can I easily port my Android or iOS app to MeeGoo? I doubt that very much. Which means that I need to write apps for a third OS. Not a good decision if i can cover 95% of the current market buy supporting iOS and Android.
How can someone get a patent on an obvious implementation of a new standard, in this case 802.11? I wonder if Anthony Spearman or Andrew Tompkins had any access or input into the standard? I wonder if they were part of the standards process but realized they couldn't patent the standard so the patented the implementation.