>> Web servers do understand the concept of folders or directories, however you like to refer to the concept
Would you like clarification on this? The part where I mention you're free to refer to the concept using different terms that is.
>> I would bet anything that this story is NOT in a folder "story/16/09/14/2242216/"
You sound fairly confident, good for you. I'm sure you have plenty of evidence if you're willing to risk it all? Please, if I'm wrong I'd love to learn from my mistake. I'm not sure if you read the line "from the perspective of the end user", but if so please show me how from the view you have that this story isn't in that location on the website.
>> Being a tech site, these news sources should understand the difference between a folder and an URL. And so should you.
Should I? Ok, if you say so my friend. But then again, I didn't make the claim that the terms URL and folder have a one to one relationship so I'm not sure why you brought up the fact that I should know that they don't.
I (and my browser) know exactly what directory (from the perspective of the end user) this story is in, it's story/16/09/14/2242216/ . It doesn't matter what physical directory the folder is in on the device serving the content, as long as from a logical perspective it's '/speedtest'.
What makes you think the network level requires this knowledge, and it can't be implemented at proxy / firewall level based on the logical directory in the URL?
A redirect to a captive portal for all but certain white-listed content is trivial to setup, source: Years of experience doing exactly this.
I'd assume in this context (web servers) that a folder with '/' prefix means it's a folder off the root, not that the folder has a '/' in the name. Possibly this is just a reference to it being a folder named speedtest thought.
Web servers do understand the concept of folders or directories, however you like to refer to the concept. The URL of this story is in the '/story' directory.
There are a few ways this could be implemented, I'd assume that the T-Mobile firewall blocks all content or redirects to the payment page on an unpaid account unless the content is in the directory '/speedtest', and that the hacker is passing URL requests as an argument to a file located in a folder of the name '/speedtest'. I could be wrong.
Hope that helps.
I reached out to Verizon, who -- as in the e-mail notice -- suggested the fee was necessary to pay for "frequent repairs" on older gear.
I've tried a couple of audit only courses, and to be honest I don't learn well without having to apply some knowledge and process the material.
I couldn't care less about certification or grading, but the courses I've tried on the new platform don't provide me with any feedback on whether I understand the material or not.
"at Less than half as size"*
The laser needs just a few seconds of continuous to set a drone aflame
I'd give it a few minutes of continuous just to be safe.
Could it cause cancer/whatever? Maybe, otherwise I wouldn't be able to actively detect it
I can detect red, salt, rough, smooth, acceleration, loud, hot + many more things. Some of these are in the form of radiation. The ones I mentioned don't cause cancer/whatever. Your argument is flawed.
and I'm sure there are people more sensitive than me.
How? You'd better have some studies or you're only as sure about it as people who are sure the earth is flat. I'm open to evidence here as long as there is some.
And yes, I'm completely willing to submit to any test anyone wants to perform. I have done so many times so far and they're always surprised that my sensory disorder is real.
Dropbox + scanned image of diagnosis document + link in reply might not get you on the 6:00 news, but it's a start.
I remember... reinstalling Win95 during high school so often I had the serial key memorised.
Was having some trouble with my laptop so the school IT desk wanted to do a clean install. Their face when I told them the serial key: priceless.
I think you should do a city swap with this guy, if you think London is worse than Mexico City for cycling in I suspect you are deeply mistaken.
I take it you've cycled in both to come to that conclusion? I haven't cycled in or commented on the safety of either, so I'm interested how you came to the conclusion that I think Mexico City is safer than London for cycling.
Neither you nor OP have demonstrated is how dedicated cycling infrastructure is detrimental to i. Cyclist safety, ii. Other road users. If that is the position you're taking please clarify yourself. That is the point being discussed, not the relevant safety of one city to another.
And it is somewhat true. I also have my tricks for my usual drive to work. If you bike to work, you will spend some weeks finding the best route and then optimizing it a bit — but after that, you will just basically repeat known patterns.
Cycling in places I am not familiar with means I must be even more careful, which translates to driving slower. And absolutely with no distractions (i.e. radio).
I think it'd be nice if cyclists who obey the road rules could expect a similar level of safety to other road users. Yes, in reality I know being the lightest most fragile thing on the road means you have to drive defensively. While I'm young enough my reflexes can take care of that, but there are very, very few old road cyclists here.
I know a few older people who used to ride on the road, it's 100% not safe for them: the combination of slower reflexes, more brittle bones at that age and longer healing times means the next idiot who wants to get around something without checking their mirrors instead of waiting 30 seconds could be the last thing outside of a hospital room they ever see.
You can reduce those risks by becoming familiar with your route and how motorists behave at different times of day, then adjusting your riding habits accordingly.
To give you an example of what I mean: there is a particular 3-way stop in my city where I always pull over to the left hand side of the lane. This is because the driver's view on one of the streets is obstructed by a large tree, so a cyclist on the right would go unseen. While my first couple of trips through that intersection were scary, because I was sticking to the right, becoming familiar with the intersection and modifying my riding habits accordingly made the trip much safer.
No offence, but it sounds to me like you're saying anyone riding through that intersection not familiar with it is in a fair amount of danger.
Oh, FFS... I am an urban cyclist in Mexico City.
Hello, I'm an urban cyclist in what's considered my country's most cycle-friendly city.
Of course, I don't cycle in highways/motorways. Of course, I go out of my way to be sure I am seen. Of course, I know all of the driving rules (and many of the usual wrongs). Of course, I am very very careful.
Where I live you would be 1. Arrested almost immediately, 2. Hit by another vehicle, 3. Fined 4. Hit by another vehicle for not doing so
But riding a bike in a city not thought for bikes is perfectly doable.
Doable, yes. Doable safely, no. People (passengers and drivers alike) regularly kill cyclists because they can't be bothered to look behind them before opening a car door, or stop SMSing their fully sick M8s long enough to check the mirrors of their daddy's BMW while they pull into your lane without indicating.
And we will only achieve greater visibility and better city design by breaking the balance and becoming more visible. By becoming more cyclists. By being seen so often on the roads that motorists will *expect* us to be there.
“Because it’s so narrow, the cars have to move out a lane or half lane, it creates confusion and traffic,” - The lord mayor of the country's most cycle accessible city reflecting the attitude of the city's non-cyclists. Drivers will not put up for going an average of 10-15kph slower, changing lane, or gently swerving to avoid cyclists. Period.
I don't need (and often don't want, as they are usually not very well planned nor enough drivable) cyclist-only paths. We are a moving vehicle, and should coexist with traffic.
If the other traffic behaved in a way that wasn't dangerous to the average cyclists life, perhaps. I'm a cautious cyclist and I count on average one event per hour of road time that would lead to a serious or fatal incident if I hadn't taken emergency actions.
I can't imagine how people less prepared for the reality of the dangers involved, or those a bit less cautious than me manage but I can see the statistics of road fatalities and serious injuries that result.
Would you take your 1988 hatchback along a highway populated by high-speed monster trucks driven by people with nothing better to do than drive as fast as they can to the next red light? How do you think they feel about your $500 fuel efficient car keeping up with their $200k gas guzzlers? Apparently, where I'm from, that sort of thing is tantamount to telling someone to go forth and multiply.
Drivers feel well within their rights to not have to be bothered to "move out a lane or half lane", after all the lord mayor doesn't seem to think they should.
"Don't think; let the machine do it for you!" -- E. C. Berkeley