How to Make a Starship Enterprise out of a 3.5" Floppy 538
Wow, there is absolutely nothing good to post in the bin today, so you get to enjoy this little gem:
Here are some simple instructions for making an Enterpris from
a 3.5" floppy disk. Remember those? Before CDRWs cost next to nothing?
Thanks to Ant for digging this one up. Update Removed the link when the original content was removed.
Mirror! (Score:4, Informative)
Just in case... (Score:5, Informative)
chaz6.com/enterprise/ [chaz6.com]
oh boy (Score:4, Informative)
but im going to get slashdotted to hell and back
768/136 dsl
but here it is: mirror [no-ip.com]
Re:Just in case... (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't work on all floppys (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Just in case... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What are Mac useers supposed to do? (Score:2, Informative)
NCC-1701-D out of a floppy (Score:5, Informative)
Well first don't remove the media from the medal disk thingie.
When the ship is assembled the media will cover the nacelles so just trim the saucer into an off-center oval with the metal disk thingie to one side.
If done somewhat correctly the saucer section will now be in somewhat accurate proportions to the hull.
As soon as I remeber where I put my camera, I will post some pics.
Re:Slashdot uses it's power unresponsibly (Score:4, Informative)
Most major news sites will ask you before posting an article with a link to your site. I know this, because I've gotten asked by major news sites several times. (The exception to this rule was MSNBC, but go figure.)
Site owners budget their hardware and network capacity to handle the traffic they expect (or empirically determine). If they can afford to budget for a traffic spike of three orders of magnitude, they may do that. But the "little guys" obviously do not necessarily have the funds to do that.
With sufficient warning, the site owners might have been able to make arrangements in advance of the posting so their site could have survived.
A mirror sounds like a perfect idea, and wouldn't even suffer the artificial problems presented in the FAQ if you did it right. All you need is Apache configured to be a caching HTTP proxy and a regular web server at the same time. Using the ProxyPass and ProxyPassReverse directives, it would appear to users like any other mirror, except it'd be using HTTP caching rules to specify what can and cannot be mirrored/cached. So long as sites are using good cache-control policies, they'd never get Slashdotted...
Slashdot editors are just lazy.
Re:LOL (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and when the level of traffic spikes one day because of a Slashdot posting, and it makes your server and/or network link unable to service those requests, people will be unable to come and see it.
put up a password site and only let in those that you want in.
Or use an Apache::Throttle-type technique and limit the traffic to what your server and bandwidth is capable of. In this situation, they more or less did that (by hand), just by blocking the content that was being requested by the Slashdot readers. The rest of the site is up to service requests for "real" visitors.
slashdot should mirror the pages - but that in itself is nearly as retarded as the first complaint.
How is that retarded? It allows their article to remain available to Slashdot readers in the event the origin server is no longer able to serve it. Do you want an article with lots of interesting comments about a topic, or do you want an article with a bunch of comments saying "slashdotted!" A mirror would solve this problem. (A mirror can be created that doesn't suffer from the artificial problems discussed in the FAQ by combining a caching HTTP proxy with a web site front-end. To users it would appear as a mirror, but the server would treat it as a proxy, so it'd always be following HTTP caching rules and the site owner couldn't/wouldn't ever have grounds to complain.)
Re:slashdot cache (Score:5, Informative)
The "we don't wanna cache" reasons given in the FAQ are mostly artificial. There's no technological reason behind their decision not to mirror sites.
HTTP is designed such that resources can be cached. If they were to exploit that HTTP caching functionality and stick a mirror-like front-end on it, they could effectively cache most of the content and even preserve the ad-serving functionality of the target. (Assuming they had their cache-control headers set up properly.) To the site owner, they'd see a handful of their pages requested by the proxy, and a bazillion requests for their advertising (since that probably wouldn't be marked as cacheable). This is HTTP at work.
Something like this has been suggested for a while, and nobody's ever really explained why this isn't workable. IMO, the Slashdot editors are just lazy/insufficiently staffed. (For the record, most major news sites will inform you when they're about to link to you.)
Some words of Advice (Score:1, Informative)
Exercise extreme caution while making "make little snips halfway through the metal". A slightly careless snip there and I managed to lob off half the neck. A kitchen knife's a better choice than scissors here.
\\// Live long and prosper
Also, some saucers have a thicker rim, in which case a slightly wider cut helps make sure the rim fits snugly in the snip. Otherwise you'll end up with a lopsided bridge.
Re:ERm? (Score:2, Informative)
mirror (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What is up with /.'ed webmasters? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:slashdot cache (Score:3, Informative)
If you're publishing a document through HTTP, you are implicitly agreeing to allow your document to be redistributed as the HTTP specification designed. If your web site is providing a document, and providing cache-control headers that indicate that document will not change in the next 5 minutes, you are implicitly allowing for servers acting as caching HTTP proxies to cache that document and serve it up to clients that request it, until that 5 minutes expires and the proxy has to re-request (or just re-validate) it.
If your "mirror" acts as a caching HTTP proxy, in that it's following the HTTP caching specifications, there are no legal issues whatsoever.
If someone wishes to defeat the mechanism, all they have to do is express a "no-cache" cache-control header, and the "mirror" ceases to function as a caching proxy.
if you don't want anybody to see your website, what the heck are you doing publishing a website to begin with?
They do want people to see their site. When Slashdot readers bring it down due to the large volume of requests, nobody can see their site. In order to restore service, they have to somehow mitigate the damage, which I believe these guys did by taking the page down. Their site recovered.
I fail to see why Slashdot should be held responsible
I look at the situation differently than you do. I'm not holding Slashdot "responsible" so much as I'd like to see Slashdot be a little more courteous towards those that they link to, and towards the readership who might like to read the articles Slashdot is linking to.
The mirror/cache idea is meant to combat the availability issue. I'm not trying to save the site owner so much as I'm pushing for a way that Slashdot readers can still have access to the articles. The result is the same, but my motive is a little more selfish.
Re:Sites slashdotted.. (Score:1, Informative)
I think they most definately should.
With broadband connections in New Zealand, traffic in excess of your allocated traffic cap costs around 20 cents per megabyte (depending on the ISP). Given that a 2mbps downstream / 256kbps upstream connection from paradise.net.nz [paradise.net.nz] only comes with a 1 gigabyte international traffic allowance, someone running a site off their home cable connection that gets slashdotted is going to be in for a big bill.
Kuro5hin has a great writeup on the subject here [kuro5hin.org].
Re:Sites slashdotted.. (Score:2, Informative)
To an extent, I agree with him.
However, Slashdot linking to someone in an article is far different to an average netzien linking from their blog. I think that given the amount of power Slashdot and similar sites wield, courtesy would suggest that they make sure they're not going to majorly inconvenience the owner of the site they're planning on linking to.
wish you hadnt posted as AC
Likewise