Perhaps a moment of congratulations is due to Jack Sprat for reaching this milestone on his compilation of jokes. In another year and a half, likely we will be able to commemorate the one thousandth chapter. I will leave it to others to compute when we might reach ten thousand or a million chapters.
Perhaps not. If we start celebrating his chapter count milestones, he might start making more frequent smaller chapters, just to inflate the chapter count.
Is there a case for reversing the order of chapters on the 'story' page? I would guess the most frequent access route is for readers to scroll down the page to find the latest chapter.
AJ
I would guess the most frequent access route is for readers to scroll down the page to find the latest chapter
A premier member can put it in his library and SOL will keep track of where you left off.
A premier member can put it in his library and SOL will keep track of where you left off.
I drag the latest-read tab to a 'SOL' directory in my bookmarks if it's one of the very few stories I read as posted, which gets me straight back to where I left off (and lets me read enough to remind me where the story's up to).
Problem with that is that when your HDD or computer goes tits-up (both of which have happened to me recently) you've lost not only where you are, but also what you were reading - unless you can remember it all.
Problem with that is that when your HDD or computer goes tits-up
I both use an on-line backup product and I have a small RAID array* in my primary computer.
Since I bought it, I have twice had to have the computer reformatted and Windows re-installed from scratch. I lost zero data.
*RAID = Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. Everything is redundantly written to all the drives in the array. Mine isn't that sophisticated, but most of the bigger hardware based RAIDs allow failed drives to be swapped out without taking the RAID off line.
I have two 1 TB drives in a tower case desktop machine built as a software based RAID on WIN 7 pro.
There is a link on top titled 'bottom' a single click and you're there.
Unless I'm going blind as well as senile, it's missing under IE8. Some of the forum facilities are also missing under IE8. Life in the slow lane!
AJ
Unless I'm going blind as well as senile, it's missing under IE8. Some of the forum facilities are also missing under IE8. Life in the slow lane!
Maybe a switch to Fire Fox is needed. I use Waterfox in Windows, a full 64 bit version of Fire Fox
Firefox seems to be the only major browser still updated for 32-bit windows. But I use it as little as possible because there's something seriously wrong with it. Earlier today Windows shut it down because it was trying to load a dll in a location reserved for system dlls. It's likely Firefox killed my last machine, taking a substantial chunk of unpublished 'Evelyn' with it.
AJ
Firefox seems to be the only major browser still updated for 32-bit windows. But I use it as little as possible because there's something seriously wrong with it. Earlier today Windows shut it down because it was trying to load a dll in a location reserved for system dlls. It's likely Firefox killed my last machine, taking a substantial chunk of unpublished 'Evelyn' with it.
Something's wrong with your version of FireFox. Trash it (uninstall and delete the source) and download the latest version. It was likely infected with some malware which is trying to infect other machines, as that's not normal FireFox behavior! In fact, few people now use IE because it's the major source of computer infections on the market today!
@D.S.
I both use an on-line backup product and I have a small RAID array* in my primary computer.
Since I bought it, I have twice had to have the computer reformatted and Windows re-installed from scratch. I lost zero data.
After my initial failed foray into RAID arrays, I've avoided them. My issue is that, since I don't often identify problems with HDs right away, the RAID preserves the errors, rather than providing safe backups. Two copies of crap still equals lost data, no matter how fast they save the lost information.
After my initial failed foray into RAID arrays, I've avoided them. My issue is that, since I don't often identify problems with HDs right away, the RAID preserves the errors, rather than providing safe backups. Two copies of crap still equals lost data, no matter how fast they save the lost information.
It's not a mater of saving lost information.
RAID is not about "backups" in the traditional sense it's about protection against disk corruption/physical disk failure. All data is written to and read from all disks (you can have raids larger than two disks) simultaneously. Even if one disk goes bad, the data can still be read from the other disk. There is no after the fact copying of corrupted data from one disk to another.
If the raid controller was set up properly, it would take care of everything necessary automatically, including monitoring the disks for failures.
The only way for a raid to loose information is to have the same sector physically corrupted across all disks. The odds of this happening are astronomical.
Suppose a three disk raid.
A file that sits on sectors ABCDE.
Sector A is lost on disk 1, Sector B is lost on disc 2 and sector C is lost on disk 3.
Because you see the whole raid as one drive, the file is still readable in an uncorrupted state because the raid controller will simply ignore the corrupted sectors on each disk reading uncorrupted data from the other disks.
Even if disk 3 suffers catastrophic failure and is completely unreadable, the complete file can still be read. And in the case of catastrophic failure of an individual drive, the raid controller should be alerting you. This should not be something you have to proactively check for.
I do a lot of digital photography. Because of the volume of the files, before I purchased my current computer, I was using a 500GB external hard drive to store my photo data. At the time, CD's were the only backup option and 500GB is a lot of CDs, so I wasn't backing up the external drive.
Then the external drive died. It wouldn't even power up. The only recovery option (which I don't even know if it's possible) would have been to send the drive somewhere to have the platters removed and re-installed in another hard drive to see if the platters were still any good. Even if I could have found somewhere to send it, it would have been an expensive proposition just to find out if the data was recoverable.
I lost years worth of photographs.
Now I use both RAID and on-line backups.
My computer is a custom built machine from a local shop. They set the RAID array up for me, it wasn't something I attempted to do myself.
Then the external drive died. It wouldn't even power up.
I've had several external drives 'fail' and refuse to power up as well. The fault in EVERY case was the interface card that made it an external! By removing the drives from the external case and installing them as internal drives in my tower, they once again became usable.
I'm thinking about buying an external mini HD drive just to disassemble and upgrade one of my laptops.
edit: typo
Firefox seems to be the only major browser still updated for 32-bit windows.
I know, and I looked into it, it is something to do with the Windows code and how they interact. Fire Fox on Unix and Linux is 64 bit, so it's not the base FF code. I couldn't find a definitive explanation, but from what i could find I've assumed it's something related to how FF have moved away from the MS .NET code and Java code to make FF more secure has limited it's ability to run the 64 bit components in MS Windows which relies heavily on .NET and Java. However, Waterfox is an overlay on FF that does use the Windows 64 bit capabilities, with all data stored in the FF files.
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
edit to add
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfox
You're not blind. It turned out that I had added that jump link to the mobile version only. It's now on both versions.
You're not blind. It turned out that I had added that jump link to the mobile version only. It's now on both versions.
Lazeez, if case you're still paying attention, despite our previous discussion on the topic, I've never been able to post replies to the forum from my iPhone, although I can from my iPad. It's annoying having to save my comments until I return home from a trip and can switch devices. Have you ever figured out what the issue is? Device definition perhaps?
@Ernest
I've used waterfox for years, mostly because I typically leave a dozen windows open, each with a couple dozen tabs. The 64-bit processing allows my 64gb memory to keep all those pages in memory, whereas the 32-bit FireFox could only hold a fraction of that number of pages, which substantial delays. The only penalty I suffer now is an exceptionally long time to close the final window when I shut down Waterfox each night.
Lazeez, if case you're still paying attention, despite our previous discussion on the topic, I've never been able to post replies to the forum from my iPhone, although I can from my iPad. It's annoying having to save my comments until I return home from a trip and can switch devices. Have you ever figured out what the issue is? Device definition perhaps?
I've never had problem posting from my iPhone or the Android phone that I keep for testing.
Did you install an ad blocker on your phone? Maybe it's blocking the site's Javacripts that handle the forum functions. If not, have you tried a reload? on the iPhone, if you click the reload button (circle arrow) while viewing a forum page, you would force a reload of the scripts and the stylesheets. That may fix it.
Can you describe exactly what happens when you try on the iPhone? At what stage does it fail? do you get a posting form at all? if you do, what happens when you click 'Post'?
This reply was edited to add this using my iPhone.
Can you describe exactly what happens when you try on the iPhone? At what stage does it fail? do you get a posting form at all? if you do, what happens when you click 'Post'?
All that happens is: I click the left-arrow "Reply" button, and nothing happens. It only occurs on my iPhone (iPhone 6+), not on my iPad. I'll try the reload, but I've done the whole 'window refresh' to no avail.
And while I typically use script blockers on Windows, I don't on Safari. I've basically given up on visiting the forum while I'm out, instead waiting until I return home (or I take my iPad/Macbook while traveling).