Post what you are thinking right now, part two

[Queen Victoria]

I should probably log off and try to do something useful.

You've insulted all of I2 by insinuating that sharing with us is not useful.

WE (INTENSITY SQUARED) ARE NOT AMUSED.

[odeon]

I should probably log off and try to do something useful.

You've insulted all of I2 by insinuating that sharing with us is not useful.

WE (INTENSITY SQUARED) ARE NOT AMUSED.

So sorry. Really.

[odeon]

And this post happened only because I feel like postwhoring.

[Pyraxis]

If you're on a Windows box, fire up a DOS prompt and run "tracert www.google.com". That should give you a basic idea of where the bottlenecks are. If on a Mac, the equivalent is "traceroute".

You should probably also compare browsing speeds between a web address and an IP, say, www.google.com and 173.194.71.103. If there is a significant difference, your ISP is most likely having DNS trouble.

If that is the case, you should be able to use another DNS server such as Google's 8.8.8.8 or Open DNS's 208.67.222.222. Usually, this involves editing a modem/router configuration page but I don't know the details of your setup.

The tracert results for Google came out pretty normal (mostly under 30ms per hop) but another site that I use a lot had a half dozen "request timed out" at the end of the list.

Isquared came out under 30ms for the first seven lines, which seems to get it out of the range of addresses with my ISP name in them, but then immediately dropped to 70ms and stayed around there for the next seven lines and then went to "request timed out".

Thanks for posting this, it's a neat diagnostic.

["couldbecousin"]

Not many posts today.

  I'm working on it!  More posts coming down the pike!   

It does look a little better today.

  And when you wake up, there will be even more posts! 

It was down a bit again.

Where is everybody?

  I was doing my laundry      and my taxes! 

[Semicolon]

Not many posts today.

  I'm working on it!  More posts coming down the pike!   

It does look a little better today.

  And when you wake up, there will be even more posts! 

It was down a bit again.

Where is everybody?

  I was doing my laundry      and my taxes! 

At least you finished them early.

["couldbecousin"]

Not many posts today.

  I'm working on it!  More posts coming down the pike!   

It does look a little better today.

  And when you wake up, there will be even more posts! 

It was down a bit again.

Where is everybody?

  I was doing my laundry      and my taxes! 

At least you finished them early.

  For me, getting them done the night before deadline IS early. 

['andersom']

Should I get my laundry in now, or let it hang in the wind a bit more?

[Bastet]

My eye itches

[odeon]

Not many posts today.

  I'm working on it!  More posts coming down the pike!   

It does look a little better today.

  And when you wake up, there will be even more posts! 

It was down a bit again.

Where is everybody?

  I was doing my laundry      and my taxes! 

You should post about them here!

[odeon]

If you're on a Windows box, fire up a DOS prompt and run "tracert www.google.com". That should give you a basic idea of where the bottlenecks are. If on a Mac, the equivalent is "traceroute".

You should probably also compare browsing speeds between a web address and an IP, say, www.google.com and 173.194.71.103. If there is a significant difference, your ISP is most likely having DNS trouble.

If that is the case, you should be able to use another DNS server such as Google's 8.8.8.8 or Open DNS's 208.67.222.222. Usually, this involves editing a modem/router configuration page but I don't know the details of your setup.

The tracert results for Google came out pretty normal (mostly under 30ms per hop) but another site that I use a lot had a half dozen "request timed out" at the end of the list.

Isquared came out under 30ms for the first seven lines, which seems to get it out of the range of addresses with my ISP name in them, but then immediately dropped to 70ms and stayed around there for the next seven lines and then went to "request timed out".

Thanks for posting this, it's a neat diagnostic.

Do you get the same approximate results if you run tracert several times against the same address?

['andersom']

Are other members also in withdrawn mode?


Or are they all indulging in life?


The board is more quiet than I am. And I am very quiet.

[moarskrillex42]

Are other members also in withdrawn mode?


Or are they all indulging in life?


The board is more quiet than I am. And I am very quiet.

I've certainly been indulging in life lately.

In other news, tomorrow I need to wash my sheets.

[Semicolon]

Are other members also in withdrawn mode?


Or are they all indulging in life?


The board is more quiet than I am. And I am very quiet.

I will be indulging this life this weekend. Unfortunately, I won't be here to share it with you.

[DirtDawg]

Thinking that I have too often missed some of the best movies of our time.

Just watched "Lady Sings The Blues."

I have owned the LP soundtrack for many years, well, since the seventies and I never really played it that much.

I just indulged myself in the depths of this awesome movie.  This would be one that I will replace on Blu-ray as soon as it is available. (as far as I can find it is not yet available on Blu-ray)

The standard definition DVD is just OK. The picture is fine, but the sound is just overly compressed and really digi sounding. This is a movie that would totally benefit from a modern re-release using the latest standards and then played using the current digital to analog chips and protocols.

An amazing movie!