ultravnc has better performance than tightvnc on Windows 7

Use ultravnc (Windows 7 X64) and you should see better performance.

Prolific USB to COM driver can not start error code 10 on Windows 7 64-bit

There are a couple of prolific chipsets i've seen, the older chips sets don't seem to work with the new driver on the prolific website.

Which version: Rev_0300 or Rev_0400
1. Plug in the adapter and open the device manager.

• If the driver is loaded, you'll see the device under ports, probably with a Yellow !
• If the driver isn't loaded it will likely appear under Other (or unknown?) Devices.

2. Double click the adapter to open its properties.  
3. Go to the details tab in the top right.
4. Click the drop down box and choose Harware IDs.
5. Note if it says Rev_0300 or Rev_0400

Which Driver Version

• Rev_0400 works with the lasest drivers from the Prolific Website (Xp, Win7 32 or 64.) 
• Rev_0300 needs older drivers XP: driver version 2.0.2.24.  Windows 7 (32 and 64) version 3.0.1.0.  Download it HERE or HERE

Loading the Drivers:

Win7

1. Run the application VISTA.EXE to install the drivers.  Open the device manager and the adapter should be present under Port and may be showing a yellow ! exclamation mark showing in the device manager and reporting Code 10.  (If it looks normal, it's already good to go)

2. Right click the device (in the device manager) and choose update driver. Don't let windows update automatically - you need to pick from a list. 

After clicking update drvier choose:

• Browse My Computer for Drvier Sowftware
• Let me pick from a list of device drivers on my computer
• Prolific USB-to-Serial Comm Port version [version] > Next

build a golang cross-compile toolchain for ARM on Linux

1. Download the latest golang source: wget https://go.googlecode.com/files/go1.2.1.src.tar.gz
2. export GOOS=linux
3. export GOARCH=arm
4. export GOARM=7 (find out your ARM version based on the ARM processor). This step can be skipped as long as you know your ARM version is not 5.
5. export GOROOT=/home/me/go (set this to where your untarred go directory)
6. cd go/src; ./make.bash

There you have it.

Parsing URLs with the DOM!

http://james.padolsey.com/javascript/parsing-urls-with-the-dom/

parseURL

// This function creates a new anchor element and uses location
// properties (inherent) to get the desired URL data. Some String
// operations are used (to normalize results across browsers).
 
function parseURL(url) {
    var a =  document.createElement('a');
    a.href = url;
    return {
        source: url,
        protocol: a.protocol.replace(':',''),
        host: a.hostname,
        port: a.port,
        query: a.search,
        params: (function(){
            var ret = {},
                seg = a.search.replace(/^\?/,'').split('&'),
                len = seg.length, i = 0, s;
            for (;i<len;i++) {
                if (!seg[i]) { continue; }
                s = seg[i].split('=');
                ret[s[0]] = s[1];
            }
            return ret;
        })(),
        file: (a.pathname.match(/\/([^\/?#]+)$/i) || [,''])[1],
        hash: a.hash.replace('#',''),
        path: a.pathname.replace(/^([^\/])/,'/$1'),
        relative: (a.href.match(/tps?:\/\/[^\/]+(.+)/) || [,''])[1],
        segments: a.pathname.replace(/^\//,'').split('/')
    };
}

Usage

var myURL = parseURL('http://abc.com:8080/dir/index.html?id=255&m=hello#top');
 
myURL.file;     // = 'index.html'
myURL.hash;     // = 'top'
myURL.host;     // = 'abc.com'
myURL.query;    // = '?id=255&m=hello'
myURL.params;   // = Object = { id: 255, m: hello }
myURL.path;     // = '/dir/index.html'
myURL.segments; // = Array = ['dir', 'index.html']
myURL.port;     // = '8080'
myURL.protocol; // = 'http'
myURL.source;   // = 'http://abc.com:8080/dir/index.html?id=255&m=hello#top'

I’ve tested this solution in all modern browsers (including IE6) and it seems to work perfectly. If you spot any inconsistencies please let me know.

If you don’t feel comfortable using something which relies on the DOM then have a look at this although please note it’s about 12 times slower than the above solution…