Two interesting space blog articles

From Paleo-Futu "Space And National Security" from 1963, with video:
http://www.paleofuture.com/2008/07/s...rity-1963.html
And a new searchable NASA internet image archive:
http://www.paleofuture.com/2008/07/n...t-archive.html

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

And a new searchable NASA internet image archive:
http://www.paleofuture.com/2008/07/n...t-archive.html


I forgot to mention that you can spend many a day going through the NASA
image website, thanks to its use of MolassesCo's
patented "SlowLoad" technology.

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Pat Flannery wrote:

And a new searchable NASA internet image archive:
http://www.paleofuture.com/2008/07/n...t-archive.html


I forgot to mention that you can spend many a day going through the NASA
image website, thanks to its use of MolassesCo's
patented "SlowLoad" technology.

Then you need a better ISP. ;-)

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Jeff Findley wrote:
Then you need a better ISP. ;-)

No, it's the server at the website; or somewhere between it and here.
I'm on a fiber optic connection.
I've noted two things about most government websites:
1.) They are very slow to load.
2.) They are very poor at keeping their website certificates in order.
The last one applies particularly to any military-related websites,
where screwed-up or expired website certificates are the rule, not the
exception.
I just washed out the cache, and timed how long the homepage of
http://www.nasaimages.org/ takes to load.
It's not particularly large or graphic-intensive (no video), but from
connection till download was completed took over two minutes.
Once you get into the site things speed up a bit, but the way you size
images for download isn't intuitive to any great degree.
And that odd expanding history bar at the bottom of the homepage is
again not intuitive, and way too clever for its own good and ease of
navigation.
I've noticed things like this on a lot of NASA webpages; the whole world
does things in one pretty-much standard way, and NASA does it entirely
differently, and in a lot more complex "artistic"* and obtuse way.
The only really slick thing they came up with was that "J-Track 3D"
page, which is one of the coolest things on the web:
http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtr.../JTrack3d.html
Let's see... NOVA-11 is getting ready to pass overhead from the south.

* Read: "Looks impressive to someone who's never tried to actually use
it; looks like a goofy doo-dad to someone who has."
I assume that's how you get government contracts...deal with people who
know hardly anything about using computers.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:I just washed out the cache, and timed how long the homepage of
:http://www.nasaimages.org/ takes to load.
:It's not particularly large or graphic-intensive (no video), but from
:connection till download was completed took over two minutes.
:

Something wrong with your connection, Pat. I just followed your link
and it took maybe 5 seconds to load, most of that because it *is*
rather graphics intensive. I bet they haven't reduced the resolution
of the images on their page.

--
"Most people don't realize it, but ninety percent of morality is based
on comfort. Incinerate hundreds of people from thirty thousand feet
up and you'll sleep like a baby afterward. Kill one person with a
bayonet and your dreams will never be sweet again."
-- John Rain, "Rain Storm"

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Something wrong with your connection, Pat. I just followed your link
and it took maybe 5 seconds to load, most of that because it *is*
rather graphics intensive. I bet they haven't reduced the resolution
of the images on their page.


I'm still running a old 600 x 800 monitor with Windows 98, so maybe that
explains it.
On the other hand, did you clear your cache before going to it, so you
could see what amount of time it takes to load the first time you visit it?
I use Firefox's ability to clear the cache every time I leave the web to
conserve hard drive space.
Still, that being said, that timeline bar at the bottom of the page
certainly doesn't explain itself easily until you put your cursor over it.
All the other major webpages I go to still download their homepage in
around 1/4 of that time, at most.
You want to see how to do space webpages, check out this one from the
Russian Buran website:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/kompon.htm
Start clicking around on the images and hypertext on that webpage
sometime...because NASA has nothing that has anything like it in regards
to the Shuttle.
That one webpage links to around well over 100 others once you start
clicking on things linked to it and go from there.
....and that website was _dozens_ of main pages linked like that.
It was obviously done on a shoestring budget, and it makes our NASA
websites look pathetic by comparison.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Something wrong with your connection, Pat. I just followed your link
: and it took maybe 5 seconds to load, most of that because it *is*
: rather graphics intensive. I bet they haven't reduced the resolution
: of the images on their page.
:
:
:I'm still running a old 600 x 800 monitor with Windows 98, so maybe that
:explains it.
:

Yea Gods, man! Go out and buy some merely OLD equipment.

:
:On the other hand, did you clear your cache before going to it, so you
:could see what amount of time it takes to load the first time you visit it?
:

I'd never been there before, so there was nothing cached in the first
place.

:
:I use Firefox's ability to clear the cache every time I leave the web to
:conserve hard drive space.
:Still, that being said, that timeline bar at the bottom of the page
:certainly doesn't explain itself easily until you put your cursor over it.
:

Yeah, that was just a little weird.

:
:All the other major webpages I go to still download their homepage in
:around 1/4 of that time, at most.
:

Yeah. I've got a 6 year old machine with a somewhat newer video
system and a nice, large pipe. Most web pages just pop up nearly
instantaneously.

:
:You want to see how to do space webpages, check out this one from the
:Russian Buran website:
:http://www.buran.ru/htm/kompon.htm
:Start clicking around on the images and hypertext on that webpage
:sometime...because NASA has nothing that has anything like it in regards
:to the Shuttle.
:That one webpage links to around well over 100 others once you start
:clicking on things linked to it and go from there.
:

Doesn't do me any good, what with being in Russian and all.

:
:...and that website was _dozens_ of main pages linked like that.
:It was obviously done on a shoestring budget, and it makes our NASA
:websites look pathetic by comparison.
:

Perhaps, but we have actual flying hardware. Maybe that's why they
don't have time to putz around with web sites?

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On Aug 1, 6:05*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

::Fred J. McCall wrote:

:
: Something wrong with your connection, Pat. *I just followed your link
: and it took maybe 5 seconds to load, most of that because it *is*
: rather graphics intensive. *I bet they haven't reduced the resolution
: of the images on their page.
: *
:
:I'm still running a old 600 x 800 monitor with Windows 98, so maybe that
:explains it.
:

Yea Gods, man! *Go out and buy some merely OLD equipment.

:
:On the other hand, did you clear your cache before going to it, so you
:could see what amount of time it takes to load the first time you visit it?
:

I'd never been there before, so there was nothing cached in the first
place.

:
:I use Firefox's ability to clear the cache every time I leave the web to
:conserve hard drive space.
:Still, that being said, that timeline bar at the bottom of the page
:certainly doesn't explain itself easily until you put your cursor over it.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
lephone...


Fred J. McCall wrote:

Something wrong with your connection, Pat. I just followed your link
and it took maybe 5 seconds to load, most of that because it *is*
rather graphics intensive. I bet they haven't reduced the resolution
of the images on their page.


I'm still running a old 600 x 800 monitor with Windows 98, so maybe that
explains it.

I happen to like Windows 98.

Let's face it, except for graphics intensive uses (and most stuff has way
too much graphics), most of our machines are overpowered.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Scott Hedrick wrote:
I happen to like Windows 98.


It has all the bugs worked out of it, and not a lot of unnecessary bells
and whistles like the later versions.
Unfortunately, Microsoft isn't supporting it any more so it's getting
fluky in regards to websites, and soon I'll have to upgrade out of
simple necessity.

Pat