|
Consider that one reason why I suggest you post this on the forum I mentioned is so that the content of the discussion ... which may, indeed, be valuable in the future to others, is not "lost in the spate" of the Lounge's flow of general hoop-la.dandy72 wrote: If I'm in the wrong here, then this invalidates pretty much everything that's ever been asked here as a question.
I can only hope this statement reflects a temporarily missing-in-action sense of social responsibility.
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Consider that one reason why I suggest you post this on the forum I mentioned is so that the content of the discussion ... which may, indeed, be valuable in the future to others, is not "lost in the spate" of the Lounge's flow of general hoop-la.
Fair enough.
BillWoodruff wrote: I can only hope this statement reflects a temporarily missing-in-action sense of social responsibility.
Asking any question in the lounge is socially irresponsible. Duly noted for future reference.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure about this, but maybe disabling the recycle bin for the volume prevents Windows from recreating the recycle bin folder again and again. You can right-click on the Recycle Bin and choose Properties to check it out.
I think you cannot avoid that 50 MB of "wasted space", I guess it must have something to do with the overhead of the file system (things like MFT, reserved blocks, allocation table, etc.), although around 50 MB seems to be pretty much for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you thought about the fact that file tables and formatting information also takes up space? This is why if you format a 1TB hard drive, you will get less than 900 GB of free space. Now even if you haven't formatted the file yet, I'm confident that the VHD file system must have some way to track the bytes in some sort of table which will require some space.
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts?
Yeah, it's called apodization. Look it up in your Funk & Wagnalls. And it's a property of the container algorithm.
|
|
|
|
|
Bs is somewhat special: it is an extremely heavy composite particle made up of a quark and an antiquark combined into what physicists call muons.
Gee, and here I thought it was made up of a three piece suite, an ego, and an office with a window.
[edit]The strikeout on that 'e' is rather subtle![/edit]
Marc
modified 24-May-15 13:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You on the 'E's again Marc? 
Because you have one too many in there: Three piece suite[^] vs Three pieve siut[^]
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: You on the 'E's again Marc?
The little neurons in my fingers seem to override the bigger neurons in the brain. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: The little neurons in my fingers
I knew there was something special about you, Marc 
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Three piece
It's wrong type of hadrons.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: combined into what physicists call morons.
FTFY
And there's plenty to go around!
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.1 new web site.
I know the voices in my head are not real but damn they come up with some good ideas!
|
|
|
|
|
I like your interpretation better. Finally, those experiments are paying off and leading us back into the workings of the mind. Also, it made me laugh out loud!
|
|
|
|
|
So they found particle made of poop?
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't take a college degree to figure that one out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
I've been scanning Google search results for months now using only googles .Com, .BE and Co.UK but for the life of me I cannot seem to get more than about 850k unique domain names.
At first I used about one thousand hand coded search terms and read the first ten pages returned from google that included about a hundred results per page and soon got to about half a million domains but then it slowed down to a stop as it reached 700k.
Six months later I ran a scan to see how many of the 700k sites had gone 404 and also had the DNS entry removed and found that the number of sites up and running were dropping like flies (top of head, about 20% gone)
Now I have a whopping twenty seven thousand search terms pulled from meta data and have been throwing these (Very slowly) at Google and have reached about 850k domains in the database and it has all but come to a stop again and the 850k includes about 20% that went dead pulled six month previously.
I read once that the internet contains about a billion websites not that I believed these numbers and many of the domains I have collected point to foreign sites in places like China or Korea so it is a bit of a mixed bag of results and I also understand that many domain have been parked (lots are linked back to fake sites sharing the same IP and running add-words, google does not mind) but this 850k numbers I am seeing does not look anywhere near the 5-20 million that I was originally expecting.
modified 24-May-15 8:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: foreign sites in places like China or Korea
So sites in other countries are not foreign?
|
|
|
|
|
Most from Google.com or Co.UK would be english sites and english is quite common for website located in countries where english is not the offical langwage.
A finger in the air guess by me would say 1/3 of the internet uses english or has the option of being viewed in english and would be indexed by google and be returned when searching via Google.com or UK
Pushing the boat out I still don't think I could get above 4 million sites from Google even if I scanned everyone of it's country based servers.
I can tell you for a fact that some domain parks run about 20,000 sites each and they host sites that relay google add-word adverts but i would not know just how many google filters out from its results.
If these fake park sites didn't get any hits then they would not do it.
See http://ww25.krvkr.com/[^]
or
http://ww2.bangalorewalkin.com/[^]
Richard i did not know you was running a seach engine
http://www.searchinguncovered.com/?pid=7PO3Q136C&dn=RichardMacCutchan.com&rpid=7POL08WI8[^]
The fake ones I am talking about work a bit like this but just work of the parked domain name
modified 24-May-15 10:09am.
|
|
|
|
|
Would some of the 'fake' ones be cyber-squatted ones too?
(Perhaps the Bangalore walk-in site you mention is one such).
|
|
|
|
|
I think we get a bit of a mix but in general Google does manage to filter most out.
Big domain parks pointing lots of domains to the same IP would show up but I don't see anything that stands out.
|
|
|
|
|
Fantastic information. Great analysis you are doing. Really cool stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr Gadgit wrote: I've been scanning Google search results for months now using only googles .Com,
.BE and Co.UK
How?
AFAIK, you'd need help from Google to go beyond a certain number of requests.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
No i don't need any help from Google but i must admit that it's a bit of an art to fool Google in to not blocking the searches.
The first trick is going slow but also varings the delays between requests (30-60 seconds) and the second trick is to read the names and values of the HTML input boxes and buttons from the form to make up the next request URL needed for a prefect forgery.
If you don't send the cookies back then they will in time block you and it's best to use HTTPS because Google redirects to SSL after a while, it's helps them to hide spyware scripts from most people.
What i am doing might not work for much longer because google is removing all traces of domain names from its search results on mobile devices and if no one gets upset about that then they will at a guess do the same to all search results.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
