Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

X-Clacks-Overhead

xclacksoverhead.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#21

Post by Pseudomanifold »

I use this on several of my sites as well. None of them get any significant amount of traffic, so I figured it would be okay to add more names to the list, as a small token of keeping their memory alive.

Browsing the web with the Clacks Overhead extension for Chrome (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clacks-overhead-gn...), I'm always surprised by which sites enable this extension. My latest find is arXiv.org! If you go to any abstract page, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0310077v2 (picked that one at random for its humour), the header will be sent.

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#22

Post by Symbiote »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #13
aarestad wrote: post #12

I understand that the “GNU” is a series of commands and not an acronym, but is there any sort of connection with FSF GNU? Or is it just an interesting coincidence?

It's possibkle Pratchett meant it as an intentional reference to the other GNU, but if it was he never told anyone.

He obviously meant it, all his books are full of references like this.

The Annotated Pratchett File is a longrunning effort to document these references, though I'm not sure if it is really being maintained any more -- the Going Postal page is empty.

https://www.lspace.org/books/apf/

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#23

Post by oarsinsync »

mikl wrote: post #4

I guess we should all be glad that the Internet was not designed by Pratchett. If it was possible to send infinitely repeating messages like he describes, the whole Internet would soon be completely bogged down with useless overhead packages filled with spam and ads. At least the fanboys who implement this nonsense header on their servers are only wasting the bandwidth of themselves and their visitors.

> the whole Internet would soon be completely bogged down with useless overhead packages filled with spam and ads

I’d love to be on your internet where this isn’t already a reality

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#24

Post by zzo38computer »

blep_ wrote: post #17
superkuh wrote: post #2

Not that it matters, especially in a just for fun context, but X- prefixes in http headers are currently depreciated (but will probably last forever). https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648

Ehh. IMO there's still a place for them in extensions that it would make no sense to standardize - this is one example (I hope nobody attaches any behavior to this); a more common one is application-specific headers that aren't generic enough to ever have meaning outside of interop with that one application.

I agree; this is what I thought too, when I learned that "X-" is deprecated, I still thought, that "X-" should still be used (in HTTP, email, Usenet, some file formats, etc) if it has no reason to be standardized. (I have seen other made-up headers in HTTP and Usenet and email, in many cases where there is no reason to be standardized, but a few cases where standardization may be useful, maybe)

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#25

Post by mikro2nd »

I was a little baffled by the (legally void, and thus pointless) cookie notice on the site -- a site that clearly does not need cookies in order to "operate correctly". It clearly states that they use Google and other 3rd parties who set cookies, and that these are "necessary for the site to operate correctly" which appears to me to be a nonsense, since it's just a static text page. Tracking cookies are certainly not "necessary".

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#26

Post by hnbad »

mikl wrote: post #5
hprotagonist wrote: post #3

Man's not dead while his name's still spoken.

Forgotten, no. Dead, yes.

Subjectively to him, yeah, he's very much dead.

Culturally, he's still very much alive.

But that gets into philosphically discussions about what "he" even is.

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#29

Post by dspillett »

mikl wrote: post #4

I guess we should all be glad that the Internet was not designed by Pratchett. If it was possible to send infinitely repeating messages like he describes, the whole Internet would soon be completely bogged down with useless overhead packages filled with spam and ads. At least the fanboys who implement this nonsense header on their servers are only wasting the bandwidth of themselves and their visitors.

Yeah, and imagine if libraries really twisted the universe enough to create routes between different places and times. So unrealistic. The man just had no idea about shelf architecture and gravitational physics.

Ahem.

You are aware he was writing fantasy with a referring-to-real-life comedy bent, not specifications & instruction manuals, aren't you?

Re: X-Clacks-Overhead

#30

Post by Villodre »

trenec wrote: post #8
mikl wrote: post #4

I guess we should all be glad that the Internet was not designed by Pratchett. If it was possible to send infinitely repeating messages like he describes, the whole Internet would soon be completely bogged down with useless overhead packages filled with spam and ads. At least the fanboys who implement this nonsense header on their servers are only wasting the bandwidth of themselves and their visitors.

He would have had the beginnings of dementia at the time of writing the book, please cut him some slack.

What a mean and unnecessary thing to say :-(
Post reply on HN