Slashdot Mirror

and of course, a quick peek at imdb.com/robots.txt could explain why...

# robots.txt for http://imdb.com/

User-agent: Mediapartners-Google*
Disallow: /ActorSearch
Disallow: /ActressSearch
Disallow: /AddRecommendation ...

It also includes "User-agent: *" about halfway through, but the list was different at some time..

You can always check the previous versions of the robots.txt on the wayback machine

Called Manbeef.com that claimed to cater to the human-eating connoisseur. The parody was so well done, many people thought it was for real, and the police even investigated.

This is from what I've heard about the Crusoe. Or, is this the Efficieon (sp?) If so, my numbers are off. Even then, I'd still prefer a VIA C3, which is a bit more predictable when it comes to performance, and is just as low powered in the Eden variant, which is now ramped up just as high as the main C3.

However, it IS the new version of a vaporware product - try minipc.vulcan.com and see what I mean. Better yet, try here for more.

BTW, this is a bit misleading:
FlipStart features a 1 GHz processor (just like a standard full-size laptop computer).
I have not seen a standard full-size laptop computer this year OR last year with a 1GHz CPU. I've seen thin and lights with 800-1100MHz CPUs, but those are not full-size.

If VOIP evolves on the wave of decentralized P2P. And if wireless Internet projects like SFLAN become the predominant medium for these networks there will be no "VOIP Providers" to regulate.

Indeed. Compare the current FCC enforcement page with the enforcement page from a few months ago. Look at what's at the top of "What We Do" in each case.

Who would want an electronic version of the Enigma machine?
A time travler...
And while we are at it if any time travlers are reading the Slashdot archives remember to pull the URL off the Wayback machine (Becouse no doupt the URL went away 25 years ago.. shortly after slashdotting).

I'm gona guess this saved you one jumps worth of fule so now if you'll jump over to 1979 and warn me to NOT go to my girlfriends HS.
(Thinking with the wrong orgen almost screwed my education... and her HS has a shotty computer lab)

I remember reading some interesting discussion about this. The web page seems to be down but I managed to find a copy from the wayback machine. Enjoy

About 5 years ago, DigiScents developed a product called the iSmell, which was covered by Wired Magazine. It was even on the memoriable cover. They hired Marc Canter to be their visionary spokesguru:

In Bellenson's apartment, Marc Canter has been lying on a postmodern faux-leopard-skin couch with his eyes half closed, listening as Bellenson and Smith outline their grand vision. He rouses himself now, like a lugubrious guru, a veteran of more than half a dozen projects pushing the state of the art. He wishes to make a statement about trends that lie ahead.

"There is a new paradigm for tools," he says. "In the old days, they were shrink-wrapped pieces of software; you sat down and read the manual and used the tool. Nowadays, the tools are free. And what we need are scalable content tools. Look at Hollywood: They take a movie and amortize the cost among multiple forms, from cable TV to toys. On the Web, we haven't been able to do that, because it's just a delivery medium. But if all the content can be decoupled" - in other words, if it can exist separately from any particular format - "I can output a low-end Web site, a medium-res CD-ROM, and a high-end broadband version, all from the same ideas. In the smell world, this means 16-pack cartridges that do only a few smells, or big systems that do thousands."

"We expect to have low-end and high-end iSmell hardware," Smith agrees. "The low end may retail for under $200. The smell cartridges - even at the high end - will probably cost under $50." With moderate use, he guesses, they should last a few months.

"The key, as always, is the installed base," Canter says. "But there's so many different target markets. It'll be easy to get overwhelmed. You'll need a staff of 15 people just to answer the phones. We'll do the usual things - developers' kits, conferences, seminars, T-shirts, hats, all that stuff." The prospect seems to overcome him with ennui, yet he appears convinced it will work.

[...] "I think aesthetic disclaimers will be more important," adds Canter. "You know, when PageMaker was first released, it created a lot of really ugly pages. I'll be surprised if 10 percent of the first smell output is bearable."

This is, after all, a totally new art form.

"We know when the first visual art was done, in cave paintings," Canter continues. "And the first musical art consisted of tribal people beating drums. Think of all the books written about musical and visual arts since then. Now show me the library on smells."

For some reason, DigiScent's iSmell Digital Scent Technology never took off.

-Don

RealAroma was a real leader back in its day. I especially liked the SmellU-SmellMe client.

I'm amazed I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but lots of people agreed over a year ago to send their checks to the EFF. The domain has since gone off-line, but SendItToTheEFF.org was mentioned on several blogs back in early 2003. It was also mentioned in EFF's EFFector newsletter.

Sadly, the realaroma.com site is down, but the wayback machine still has it.

The picture of the SmellU-SmellMe software is priceless.

Good lord, does this really date to 1996? "I grow old, I grow old, I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled." -- T.S. Eliot.

Along those lines, for other cave dwellers - after emerging from one's cave:
Don't look directly at the sun.
Definitely, don't look at IA with all the really old blinking text embarassing personal shit on it nor should one use the Alexa Tool Bar

** Scientific findings on issues such as climate change, mercury emissions, and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and websites.

really? no proof given though, huh?

** Highly qualified scientists have been dismissed from advisory committees on childhood lead poisoning prevention and workplace safety and replaced by less qualified individuals with industry ties. At least two panels dealing with nuclear weapons have been disbanded altogether.

Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?

Specifically, the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.

That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.

Now, you wrote: Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized.

Sounds eerily like what UCS did to Bjorn Lomborg. Incidentally, Lomborg was "cleared" by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry.

UCS has issued "studies" like this before, and none of them are ever backed up with facts. If you really read the website, you will see that they are an environmental organization, not a group representing the majority view of scientists either worldwide or in the U.S. Nothing against advocates for the environment, but color me skeptical on any organization that tries to misrepresent who they really are. UCS criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring "scientific findings on issues such as climate change...," yet they seem to do their own share of ignoring certain findings on the issue.

The newspapers simply recite a portion of the "about us" section of the website when describing UCS. Here's an alternative description of the organization. Granted, there is some bias in this assessment, but no more than UCS has for the Bush administration (see their objection to the Iraq war...not that their position is right or wrong, but it is no doubt an awful peculiar policy for a group of "objective scientists" to weigh in on).

I know a lot of you hate Bush, and that's fine, but you still have to consider the source of the information.

reminds me of the old fishdot.org bit on star wars liquors. Unfortunately it's no more so here's a wayback machine look at it

*Shrug*

e.

The whole phenomenon was down to greed. I worked on a big project, and it happened like this:

1. A good idea started
2. Good people got hired
3. Investors dumped in a load of money
4. Stuff got too big too quick
5. People on stupid salaries started thinking they had to change stuff all over the place, new logo new this new that
6. The web visitors just said no thanks had enough - it wasn't working like it used to
7. The site that is left is no more, but you can see the changes here:

The idea was OK, but by the time a load of stupid shit like free email, instant messaging and all that was tacked on, it just didn't work any more, cost way too much money...

But we had a great launch party for Orientation Morocco, let me tell you!

The whole phenomenon was down to greed. I worked on a big project, and it happened like this:

1. A good idea started
2. Good people got hired
3. Investors dumped in a load of money
4. Stuff got too big too quick
5. People on stupid salaries started thinking they had to change stuff all over the place, new logo new this new that
6. The web visitors just said no thanks had enough - it wasn't working like it used to
7. The site that is left is no more, but you can see the changes here:

The idea was OK, but by the time a load of stupid shit like free email, instant messaging and all that was tacked on, it just didn't work any more, cost way too much money...

But we had a great launch party for Orientation Morocco, let me tell you!

The whole phenomenon was down to greed. I worked on a big project, and it happened like this:

1. A good idea started
2. Good people got hired
3. Investors dumped in a load of money
4. Stuff got too big too quick
5. People on stupid salaries started thinking they had to change stuff all over the place, new logo new this new that
6. The web visitors just said no thanks had enough - it wasn't working like it used to
7. The site that is left is no more, but you can see the changes here:

The idea was OK, but by the time a load of stupid shit like free email, instant messaging and all that was tacked on, it just didn't work any more, cost way too much money...

But we had a great launch party for Orientation Morocco, let me tell you!

The whole phenomenon was down to greed. I worked on a big project, and it happened like this:

1. A good idea started
2. Good people got hired
3. Investors dumped in a load of money
4. Stuff got too big too quick
5. People on stupid salaries started thinking they had to change stuff all over the place, new logo new this new that
6. The web visitors just said no thanks had enough - it wasn't working like it used to
7. The site that is left is no more, but you can see the changes here:

The idea was OK, but by the time a load of stupid shit like free email, instant messaging and all that was tacked on, it just didn't work any more, cost way too much money...

But we had a great launch party for Orientation Morocco, let me tell you!

Some time between June 30, 2003 August 23, 2003 the number on the site changed from "3,083,324,652" to "4,285,199,774".

Feel free to look for more changes at http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.google.com.

Some time between June 30, 2003 August 23, 2003 the number on the site changed from "3,083,324,652" to "4,285,199,774".

Feel free to look for more changes at http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.google.com.

Some time between June 30, 2003 August 23, 2003 the number on the site changed from "3,083,324,652" to "4,285,199,774".

Feel free to look for more changes at http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.google.com.

...is how to get rid of those pseudo-pages in Google. The ones with names like "thing_that_youre_searching_for.html", and all they are is either a page of dead links to crap on ebay, or a "Hey, we do great searches for your stuff".

+1

There are things that you just can't use Google for any more becaues these googlespam sites score so well... it's like being back in the days before google...

Go and read this article about one of the creators of Superman.

Early last year I purchased tkcMail from theKompany.com. At the time I (and many others) purchased this product, the product page stated that IMAP support was "coming soon". That was over a year ago.

Since purchasing the product, I joined the product's mailing list to listen for updates on when to expect IMAP support for the product. I was certainly not the only one complaining. The president of the company would often come on the list and promise its "soon" arrival, often in rather rude wording.

Every so often a developer from the company would appear on the list, telling us it was due out the next week. I believe the last time we heard that was last August.

I and many others tried to get a refund for the product, since we eagerly bought the product in hopes we'd have a useable IMAP client for the Sharp Zaurus and have yet to see it. But we're always promptly reminded that the company website states that sales are "as is". Since the software is downloaded upon purchase, they claim that since there's no way to not have the software, how can they be expect to allow refunds? Good point there, but I still didn't buy that they could advertise a feature as coming soon like they did to bait people into buying something they couldn't get a refund for.

Last November I had just about had enough of the waiting, the lax promises and the rude replies to fair questions on the IMAP feature arrival. I decided to contact the Better Business Beareau of CA and at least hopefully scare them. The replied to the first round of inquiry, then ignored the second. If I understand the BBB, they at least now have a black mark on their record.

The company web page has since removed the claim for IMAP support as a future feature of the product (a wave of the magic Wayback Machine shows the initial state of the page). A scary sight for those of us waiting for that support, but it's actually likely a result of people pointing their fingers at it when demanding a refund.

Sure, we should have all heeded their "as is" policy before buying the product, but isn't there at least something to a sort-of bait-and-switch sorta deal with this? I mean, is there a legal definition for what a company defines as "soon" when promising a future feature? Can an automobile company make a car then, for example, claim on the advertisement that it will run on water as fuel..."soon"? When do they have to make good on that promise?

Early last year I purchased tkcMail from theKompany.com. At the time I (and many others) purchased this product, the product page stated that IMAP support was "coming soon". That was over a year ago.

Since purchasing the product, I joined the product's mailing list to listen for updates on when to expect IMAP support for the product. I was certainly not the only one complaining. The president of the company would often come on the list and promise its "soon" arrival, often in rather rude wording.

Every so often a developer from the company would appear on the list, telling us it was due out the next week. I believe the last time we heard that was last August.

I and many others tried to get a refund for the product, since we eagerly bought the product in hopes we'd have a useable IMAP client for the Sharp Zaurus and have yet to see it. But we're always promptly reminded that the company website states that sales are "as is". Since the software is downloaded upon purchase, they claim that since there's no way to not have the software, how can they be expect to allow refunds? Good point there, but I still didn't buy that they could advertise a feature as coming soon like they did to bait people into buying something they couldn't get a refund for.

Last November I had just about had enough of the waiting, the lax promises and the rude replies to fair questions on the IMAP feature arrival. I decided to contact the Better Business Beareau of CA and at least hopefully scare them. The replied to the first round of inquiry, then ignored the second. If I understand the BBB, they at least now have a black mark on their record.

The company web page has since removed the claim for IMAP support as a future feature of the product (a wave of the magic Wayback Machine shows the initial state of the page). A scary sight for those of us waiting for that support, but it's actually likely a result of people pointing their fingers at it when demanding a refund.

Sure, we should have all heeded their "as is" policy before buying the product, but isn't there at least something to a sort-of bait-and-switch sorta deal with this? I mean, is there a legal definition for what a company defines as "soon" when promising a future feature? Can an automobile company make a car then, for example, claim on the advertisement that it will run on water as fuel..."soon"? When do they have to make good on that promise?

Unfortunately for them, Archive.org doesn't really care for corporate PR

The Evidence

Beautiful

The URL is wrong. The Wayback machine says that Mainfsoft press releases looked like this in 2000.

/www.mainsoft.com/press/pr-pcl.html (for example)

There's no March 2000 press release confirming MS access to Mainsoft source code, although Mainsoft did have access to MS source code, and MS may well have had perfectly legit access to Mainsoft code in return.

"There will be up to one-hundred-fifty (150) new iTLDs allocated to as many as fifty (50) new registries, with no more than one half (1/2) in the same country, created in 1996, and chartered to operate for up to five years.":
http://web.archive.org/web/20000818221119/www.iiia .org/lists/newdom/current/0518.html

Tell me what was wrong with this again?

"There will be up to one-hundred-fifty (150) new iTLDs allocated to as many as fifty (50) new registries, with no more than one half (1/2) in the same country, created in 1996, and chartered to operate for up to five years.":
http://web.archive.org/web/20000818221119/www.iiia .org/lists/newdom/current/0518.html

Tell me what was wrong with this again?

Start with Dol official UI#/workforce == (non-seasonally adjusted UE rate. U3)
9144K/146,068K == 6.3% unemployment rate.

( B.T.W. Seasonal adjustment shifts this number to 5.6%, In the last month we really lost 2.8 Million jobs, but seasonal adjustments make it look like a net gain of 112K.)

--

Add IN.....

Disability rolls rise, skew labor data

"Recent research finds a 60% jump in number of disability recipients keeping unemployment low."

"The "labor force," 142.5 million strong, does not include people who draw disability benefits from the Social Security Administration(SSA). As of December 2002, there were about 5.5 million adults getting disability benefits, totaling about $4.6 billion a month. "

OK.. so tack in 3,000K partially disabled, get federal checks, want work, but not counted.
(9,144K+3,000K) / (146,068K + 3,000K) == ~8.1% unemployment rate..

---

Factor in that there are the 10.3 Million self employed workers who are paying estimated (self employment) taxes(14.1%) for LESS THAN a 2.4 million FULL TIME MINIMUM WAGE workers. (Shift another 8 million from the employed to the unemployment category). If they're not filling form 1040-ES's, then they're not making any money. (Equivalent to unemployed)..

raw tax collection data. Table IV.. (individual estimated tax payments)
3,371 Million(2003 1040ES data)/.141(SE tax rate)/10.3Million == average SE income $2,321/yr..
[Notes: Uses 2003 tax collection data as a baseline, and ignores federal income tax liability and the contributions by people paying in for capital gains.] [Full time job at Federal Min wage pays $10,300/yr.]

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K) / (146,068K+3000K) == ~13.5% unemployment rate.

----

Add in the FACT, that there have been workforce adjustments which lop off a couple of million (unemployed) workers each year, despite the Census numbers that workforce should be growing by 2 Million per year. [B.T.W. We've added ~9 Million to the 16 and over Civilian NI population since the tech bust started, at least 65% would have taken a job if it was available.]

Undo the recent changes to workforce participation percentages. (revert back to 2000 average 67.1% verses current 65.7%) It's obvious they want to work. Just no work to be had.. That adds back in 1.4% percent of overall work population.. 3.0 Million workers..

(9,144K+3,000K+8,000K+3,000K) / (146,068K+3000K+3,000K) == ~15.2% unemployment rate.

-----

Add in the FACT that the DOL changed(1994) the household survey data collection method and resulting in the almost doubling of the non-parcipation rate, from 4.3 to 7.5 Percent. The DOL accomplished this feat by substituting a scientifically sound MAIL IN form, with scientifically discredited IN PERSON interviews.

Well, I don't know about you, but being unemployed is not a badge of honor. Most people do not like to admit that they are unemployed, and would be even less likely to do so while being interviewed in person. I.E. It demeans their social status and self esteem.

If they managed to convince/intimidate those households, with at least one unemployed worker not to participate. That would add another
3.4 Million to the unemployment/workforce figures, thusly increasing unemployment by another 2 to 3 of percent.

[Another item in the DOL household survey is the incredible number of Ineligible households!! Thats 12,000 out of a sample lot of 72,000 or 16.6%..

No pages for year 2004 found. The article said it was posted in Jan 04.

(1) The medium is often all that's left, such as in the case of much of my early jazz. Back in the days when copyright was time-limited, often the masters would be lost. And with "ephemera", or material that just wasn't consistently popular, there isn't a financial incentive to ensure that this doesn't happen. That's why the like of the Prelinger archives are so important.

(2) I would like to buy my media once, and then use it forever (well, until my death). I have a large collection of LPs that I never listen to any more, and have re-bought many on CD. I don't want to repeat that. Avoiding it is possible now, particularly with digital media. The oldest files on my current laptop date from the mid-eighties - they started out on 5.25", moved to 3.5", a double-height 10mb Winchester, over many null modem cables, later CDRs, ethernet and WiFi, but they are still the same files! My music can now do the same - it's currently residing on a 670gb Shuttle box in my living room, but I'm sure that will not be it's final resting place.

DRM prevents all of this.

This link is their technical issues section (no longer on the site) .. it doesn't particularly apply to what this guy is asking though since they are primarily concerned with a conversion of VGA to NTSC -- a much different problem.

The wayback machine only goes back to '96, but the $50 was optional.

Not quite the correct history. The domain altavista.com wasn't where AltaVista started; altavista.com belonged to an unaffiliated company not Digital. Instead, try the correct archive of Digital's Altavista at www.altavista.digital.com

For those who didn't know (like me), BackRub apparently was what became Google. Of course, I used Google to find this information.

Think not? Just take a look at their history. They stared very simple, sure, but each year the search gets smaller and smaller while the crap gets deeper and deeper. "Portal mode" peaks around 2000 and starts back down as they try to win back some of the Google converts.

Think not? Just take a look at their history. They stared very simple, sure, but each year the search gets smaller and smaller while the crap gets deeper and deeper. "Portal mode" peaks around 2000 and starts back down as they try to win back some of the Google converts.

www.sco.com
There for all your SCO Viewing Pleasures. Might be a little old ... but as SCO'y as you can get.

California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Utah

> prior to the year 2000 I find it a tad bit hard to believe that Sun was later in it's definition of write-once-run-anywhere.

Before 2000, Trolltech used the "troll.no" domain..

See http://web.archive.org/web/*/troll.no

Before 1997, they had yet another domain, but I forget what it was.

Mailbank.com at Archive.org, Nov. 11, 1998.

Just send me my reward money now. I've been using those domain hijackers for years for email/web.

Nevertheless, I'm building a startup right now, Findory.com.

Findory reminds me of MovieCentral.com, a really well-designed web application that helped users find movies simliar to ones they already liked, and also to hook up with people with similar tastes. I like it mainly because of a clever feature that threw randomly chosen movie titles at you and asked you to rate them. I fed a lot of data into their system just for the fun of it. If ever a DotCom deserved to succeed, it was that one.

But like all the other DotCom's they failed to find a revenue stream. There's no infrastructure for micropayments, nobody wants to pay a subscription, and there just isn't enough ad revenue to go around. Has something changed since then?

Well, with a wholesale value like that, I'm just going to have to run the POS into the ground. And you should get reimbursed for your fuel pump from ford since you had it worked on. If they give you crap, contact someone high up at ford. I got names and numbers over at blue oval news but I can't find it now. Quick check on the wayback machine shows this document, which has all the names and numbers for the higher-ups in Michigan.

If you liked DONKEY.BAS, try the all new Donkey .NET!

look at archive.org (way back machine) at what they used to be before becoming vaporware :) click here

Here's a page from the wayback machine dating 1997 describing friendsters et al. The last reference on the wayback machine is in april 1999...

FTD 1997 brought to you by the Internet archive.

Seems like a lot of addresses. How were they gathered?

Doesn't look like orkut.com had a sign-up period or anything...

Doesn't look like it was sent to Google-Friends Newsletter (not in the archive; plus RTFA, in which says "Google spokeswoman Eileen Rodriquez said that despite Orkut's affiliation, the service is not part of Google's product portfolio at this time.")