tinyURL address for how long?

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

From the very top of the front page of their site:

By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that
will not break in email postings and never expires.

In article <e5iks8$h4j$1 (AT) nntp (DOT) aioe.org>,
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

From the very top of the front page of their site:

By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that
will not break in email postings and never expires.

Thanks, missed the obvious place to look... (Did you know that
this is the best sort of place to hide things? I make switches
for friends and family so folk can't steal their cars and I put
them in full view and so very hard to find, not what thieves
would expect...)

--
dorayme

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> declared in alt.html:

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for

Until tinyurl.com ceases to exist.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

In article <e5iks8$h4j$1 (AT) nntp (DOT) aioe.org>,
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

From the very top of the front page of their site:

By entering in a URL in the text field below, we will create a tiny URL that
will not break in email postings and never expires.

just another thing... I have it as a toolbar link and it does not
say about this when I use it, but yes, on the home page! I guess
I am saying I am not any kind of schmuck, just a very particular
one....

But I am grateful to you, Nick.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for
Until tinyurl.com ceases to exist.

Another place for short urls that don't expire is
http://snipit.info

In article <9751l3-bdl.ln1 (AT) ophelia (DOT) g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <usenet200605 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

dorayme wrote:

His existence is part of his essential nature. The idea of a
non-existent God is a silly idea. After all, the idea of God is
of a perfect being, how perfect would a non-existent God be?

This is an old, and seriously flawed argument.

You are not wrong about this!

... the argument assumes existence is a pre-requisite
for perfection. In reality, anything that exists can never be perfect.

But on this specific thing, it is more complicated. There are a
few different strands of argument of this general sort. One of
them is about examining the concept closely and finding in it the
idea of a type of existence that is different to the existence of
ordinary things. If God exists, he does not exist in the same
sort of way to the way a brick exists. A brick could puff out of
existence, but it would be more than silly to suppose that God
had such a a precarious type of existence. His existence is much
more like the existence of classes or numbers, the prime between
6 and 9 could not just disappear or not be in the way that a
brick could disappear or not be. There is a quality of necessity
to Him, in the very idea of Him - so the theists say.

In the end, this fails, but not for nothing has it spawned such a
vast literature over the centuries, especially in the 1950s and
60s.

For example, say anything that exists has a height. If that height is big,
then the object is too big to fit into my little gold box, so it can't be
perfect, because to be perfect it should be able to fit into my gold box.

No, there is a scope problem here. Something can be perfect in
respect to certain parameters. Tables for tabular data. It is not
a mark against a hammer that it it fails miserably as a
screwdriver. It is not a mark against God that he is an obstacle
to a thief who has a sudden consciousness episode... But
existence - so it is claimed - is very much a relevant parameter.
God is the ground of all being and all that...

Ho hum...

--
dorayme

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Toby Inkster
<usenet200605 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk> declared in alt.html:

dorayme wrote:

His existence is part of his essential nature. The idea of a
non-existent God is a silly idea. After all, the idea of God is
of a perfect being, how perfect would a non-existent God be?

This is an old, and seriously flawed argument.

Agreed. It's like the Babel Fish. It proves God exists and so therefore
He doesn't. :-)

For example, say anything that exists has a height.

But that is also a false assumption. What is the height of gravity?

So if God is defined as a perfect being, God cannot exist, as existence
implies imperfection.

Only with a limited view of existence.

--
Mark Parnell
My Usenet is improved; yours could be too:
http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

dorayme wrote:

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

--
dorayme

May I, having just found and joined this eminent group, start by just
saying that I firstly discovered http://www.shorturl.com and some of
my links are now getting on for three years old and have always worked.
However I stopped using them for a while when they started charging a
buck or something to set up a forwarding URL (but before that it was
free and all my originals I have never had to pay anything for-It is
now free again) somewhat miffed I googled and selected
http://www.notlong.com, which has a simpler and quicker set up ritual.
Some of my links I have now duplicated in case I forget which one I
used to create it.
IMHO both are vastly superior to tinyurl , where the link you get will
be something unmemoriable like http://tinyurl.com/okyf
whereas both shorturl.com and notlong.com allow you to enter something
appropriate. for example I often use the fantastic internet archives
held by the "wayback machine"
and instead of bookmarking it or googling I simply type
wayback,notlong into my browser's address bar then hit control and
enter together to automatically (in Internet Exploder at least) add the
prefix and .com to get
http://www.wayback.notlong.com
which if you try it SHOULD open the required page:-
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Would you believe it Just when I wanted to show off it looks like
notlong.com is down
but possibly will work for you on the morrow
John Fowles
http://www.johnfowles.org.uk/
walks away with tail between his legs
I'll be back to read more here and later to introduce an innovative
range of HTML tutorials that I am working on for your criticisms etc.

dorayme wrote:

Anyone know how long a tinyURL address is good for, assuming the
file(s) (address of which is being shortened) are unchanged on
the server? Reliable enough to recommend for a serious company to
use for say a month or two?

--
dorayme

May I, having just found and joined this eminent group, start by just
saying that I firstly discovered http://www.shorturl.com and some of
my links are now getting on for three years old and have always worked.
However I stopped using them for a while when they started charging a
buck or something to set up a forwarding URL (but before that it was
free and all my originals I have never had to pay anything for-It is
now free again) somewhat miffed I googled and selected
http://www.notlong.com, which has a simpler and quicker set up ritual.
Some of my links I have now duplicated in case I forget which one I
used to create it.
IMHO both are vastly superior to tinyurl , where the link you get will
be something unmemoriable like http://tinyurl.com/okyf
whereas both shorturl.com and notlong.com allow you to enter something
appropriate. for example I often use the fantastic internet archives
held by the "wayback machine"
and instead of bookmarking it or googling I simply type
wayback,notlong into my browser's address bar then hit control and
enter together to automatically (in Internet Exploder at least) add the
prefix and .com to get
http://www.wayback.notlong.com
which if you try it SHOULD open the required page:-
http://www.archive.org/index.php
Would you believe it Just when I wanted to show off it looks like
notlong.com is down
but possibly will work for you on the morrow
John Fowles
http://www.johnfowles.org.uk/
walks away with tail between his legs
I'll be back to read more here and later to introduce an innovative
range of HTML tutorials that I am working on for your criticisms etc.