Slashdot Mirror

The last entry on the way back machine doesn't show that TM on the FEDORA Project site.

However, it does appear that they have been using the Fedora name longer than the original Fedora Linux Project, but not longer than Red Hat has been associated with the Fedora.

The last entry on the way back machine doesn't show that TM on the FEDORA Project site.

However, it does appear that they have been using the Fedora name longer than the original Fedora Linux Project, but not longer than Red Hat has been associated with the Fedora.

How about FreeCache, from the Internet Archive folks? They have a good presentation about how it differs from BitTorrent and it addresses the ad hoc-ness of BT.

Well, fortunately web sites aren't forever

You are forgetting about archive.org.

As an example, here is my class schedule from the fall semester of my sophomore year.

That account has been gone for years, yet the content lives on in the archive.

Well, fortunately web sites aren't forever

You are forgetting about archive.org.

As an example, here is my class schedule from the fall semester of my sophomore year.

That account has been gone for years, yet the content lives on in the archive.

I wonder if Slashdot can be successfully sued for this link?

If the google cache let's you down there is always archive.org

http://web.archive.org/web/20011012045712/http://b uddyweiserman.com/index.html

Here it is..

Thanks to the Wayback machine, you can still get a look at buddyweiserman.com

I think the original was Buddy Weiserman. Unfortunately buddyweiserman.com is dead now, but web.archive.org has an archive from April 2001.

when it was free and called PE2000.

Shame the site was brought down...

Just a note regarding whether the IA only accepts FLAC/SHN files. There are .mp3f directories on their ftp servers (ftp://etree##.archive.org/ where ## is 00 through 14 or 15). Though flac/shn are preferred (in that order), ogg/mp3 are fine as well (in that order, from the POV of a downloader of IA music).

Also, if you're create electronic mixes, you may check out discotoast.com or eartobrain.com (both basically the same thing).

I'd like to invite artists to check out the Audio section options at The Internet Archive

It's an online public library, so you don't make money, but you get exposure (perhaps indirectly helping to make money). Plus you get the satisfaction that the material will be *preserved* there for future generations, not a "hey, we'll be deleting all your stuff."

A couple relevant sections:

-Live Music Archive- for bands that are open to taping/trading of entire live shows. Hosting in "archival-quality" lossless formats (flac, shn). No mp3 at this time. Sections are designed to particular bands

-Open Source Audio- More freeform. Copyright holders can upload various items at will, in various formats (mp3 is popular). It's convenient to use Creative Commons licenses.

-Netlabels- Various stables of electronica. Mp3 also typical there.

So, feel free to spread the word about the project to people who might want to add their content.

Diana, a volunteer LMA curator (not a coward, just infrequent enough not to have a login) hamilton@umbc.edu

If any random person (and your interviewer would count, unless they are Magnum PI) can locate you over the web, using nothing more than Google (or any other search engine), you have a lot more to worry about than whether or not your prospective employer knows too much about you.

Well, you can find out all about me without a great deal of difficulty. You have been able to for years (even further back than the wayback machine remembers). I don't have a problem with this. I'm my own employer, and as I'm allergic to bosses I expect I always will be. If what I think or write shocks or offends you, that's your problem.

If you're so paranoid that you don't like the idea of other people knowing about you, fair enough. I'm not.

If any random person (and your interviewer would count, unless they are Magnum PI) can locate you over the web, using nothing more than Google (or any other search engine), you have a lot more to worry about than whether or not your prospective employer knows too much about you.

Well, you can find out all about me without a great deal of difficulty. You have been able to for years (even further back than the wayback machine remembers). I don't have a problem with this. I'm my own employer, and as I'm allergic to bosses I expect I always will be. If what I think or write shocks or offends you, that's your problem.

If you're so paranoid that you don't like the idea of other people knowing about you, fair enough. I'm not.

I've had material on MP3.com for several years now. Never paid for the service, so I had less to lose than those that took the Gold Membership, etc. But I still don't understand the griping.
The era of free multimedia serving is over. There's just too much overhead to justify providing that much free bandwidth.
For those of you who bitching about MP3.com, just accept this unfortunate reality.

Who's been screwed? OK, maybe the folks that signed up for Gold Membership. But it seems like it's pointless to bitch about what's happened - it's all just business.

It's not the same as being ripped off by your producer [Beach Boys and countless others], or cheated out of payment by a venue after a performance [an ever-present risk in a business rife with unscrupulous people].

There's always an element of risk, whatever endeavour you undertake. There's no guarantee that a party with whom you have entered into a contract and paid money for future services will not go out of business, or sell out to another party. That's just a fact of life.

Fortunately, there are still plenty of free and low-cost music-hosting alternatives [sorry, I haven't checked ALL these links recently, but most should still be good. I am a lazy sod.]:


AMP3.com
AmpCast
Audiogalaxy
efolk
etree.org (SHN)
Listen.com
Lycos Music Search
MP3.com
nzmp3
peoplesound
SoundClick
stationMP3
gdlive.com
FurtherNet
CD Baby
IUMA
BeSonic
My Local Bands
SoundClick
VITAMINIC
archive.org etree listing (SHN's)
emusic
listensmart


My music (if you're curious, totally bored, and looking for something to listen to).

How about:

archive.org/audio

While it's primarily a Live Music Archive, and they specialize in live music, you might be successful in getting your stuff hosted there.

The best way to incorporate this technology in a consumer-oriented music distribution would be to enclose it in a larger plastic enclosure with an interface to the player. Something like this [geocities.com], perhaps?

Archive.org cache and Google cache of the slashdotted geocities site. Most of the pics are absent, but oh well.

Americans used to do it this way too. The link is to a free download page for a 1944 movie, "A Tuesday In November", described as follows:

Idealized portrayal of 1944 U.S. presidential election, made to show the world that the United States was sufficiently secure to hold a free and fair election during wartime. Shows campaign activities, efforts to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and fairness of the election, and media coverage of the electoral process, all culminating in a giant nighttime gathering in Times Square where a huge crowd awaits the result. Director: John Houseman. Assistant Director: Nicholas Ray. Animation: John Hubley. Music: Virgil Thomson.

Entertaining, if not essential, viewing for anyone interested in e-voting today.

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. ... As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action. "
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002

"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002

"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]

As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."


p

If you look at the table of contents from archive.org from over two years ago, it is not listed, either. That it is not listed in the table of contents is nothing new, it was not in there before. It was apparently not in there when the Memory Hole first posted its article (it certainly wasn't in there before).

And yes, the URLs currently show one paragraph, and then the rest of the article, but those new URLs look like http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1 101980302-138662,00.html, but the article in question was at a URL that looked like http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/dom/980302/ special_report.clintons_29.html. It's a different style of URL, it's no wonder it doesn't work.

It does appear to have been removed, as I cannot find "Scowcroft" in a search from March 1-3 1998, but I can find "Nelan" (the author of the above URL that redirects, "Selling The War Badly"), and I can find it no other searches. But that it does not appear in the TOC from over two years ago, and that the URL is of a different style than the others from that TOC, makes me think someone else is going on than the various conspiracy theories seen in this discussion.

However most of these bots honor robots.txt, its pretty trivial to keep whole area's of one's website out of the offsite archives (like the Whitehouse does). Also only aware of one archive bot (The Wayback machine) which keeps perminant records (Google does not keep the cached pages for very long) and that honors robots.txt

I bet all the data is still were it was put and not perminantly mirrored elsewhere (aside from the wayback machine), take that content offline and in a year or so you'll fade from view only preserved in the Wayback Machine and to use that you need to know the orignal URL.

Cover most of the site with robots.txt and you will stay out of the public indexes. The only danger is someone who deleberatly sets out to mirror a site ignoring robots.txt

How long before Google bow to the inevitable and start to exert editorial control over what is cached?

2-4 years, I expect.

Thankfully the Internet Archive is there and also has several instances of the lost page.

In fact, it does a significantly better job of this than Google does.

A robust Internet memory would require three or four such archives under different political control (the Way Back machine itself depends on the Smithsonian and thus possibly on funds coming from the US government.)

I'd like to see net archives made by the British Library, by the Library of Congress, by the UN, by the EU, etc.

Assuming that was not a sarcastic post... check out Archive.Org for more on historical web snapshots.

Yup, it's there.

You can find the missing page using the Wayback Machine.

You can find the missing page using the Wayback Machine.

Wayback Machine

SPECIAL REPORT/CLINTON'S CRISES MARCH 2, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8

Why We Didn't Remove Saddam

By GEORGE BUSH AND BRENT SCOWCROFT

The end of effective Iraqi resistance came with a rapidity which surprised us all, and we were perhaps psychologically unprepared for the sudden transition from fighting to peacemaking. True to the guidelines we had established, when we had achieved our strategic objectives (ejecting Iraqi forces from Kuwait and eroding Saddam's threat to the region) we stopped the fighting. But the necessary limitations placed on our objectives, the fog of war, and the lack of "battleship Missouri" surrender unfortunately left unresolved problems, and new ones arose. We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

We discussed at length forcing Saddam himself to accept the terms of Iraqi defeat at Safwan--just north of the Kuwait-Iraq border--and thus the responsibility and political consequences for the humiliation of such a devastating defeat. In the end, we asked ourselves what we would do if he refused. We concluded that we would be left with two options: continue the conflict until he backed down, or retreat from our demands. The latter would have sent a disastrous signal. The former would have split our Arab colleagues from the coalition and, de facto, forced us to change our objectives. Given those unpalatable choices, we allowed Saddam to avoid personal surrender and permitted him to send one of his generals. Perhaps we could have devised a system of selected punishment, such as air strikes on different military units, which would have proved a viable third option, but we had fulfilled our well-defined mission; Safwan was waiting.

As the conflict wound down, we felt a sense of urgency on the part of the coalition Arabs to get it over with and return to normal. This meant quickly withdrawing U.S. forces to an absolute minimum. Earlier there had been some concern in Arab ranks that once they allowed U.S. forces into the Middle East, we would be there to stay. Saddam's propaganda machine fanned these worries. Our prompt withdrawal helped cement ou

Okay, so I'll say Captured By Robots is a great and entertaining show. But my problem is that what I want out of my enslaving machine musical masters is a little more up-front politics of destruction. I mean, I don't remember the Robots threatening to capture me. Or charging the humans for the privilege of liberating their automobiles via bumper sticker.

I believe the true pinnacle of the genre is the now-defunct Servotron. (Forgive the archive.org link, it's sad to realize how much disappears over time- I guess I should feel lucky I found it.) Those guys were dressed and ready for sonic domination, and they had the lyrics to back it up:
Today is your birthday; We are going to kill you
Silly celebration; there is no logic for it.

I don't really mean to take anything away from Captured By Robots, but as a veteran of a few Servotron shows, I end up wishing for Z4-OBX on drums instead of DRMBOT 0110.

I thought that logo looked similar. There was a company called Hop-On in Australia a few years ago that supposedly was going to offer free internet access (offset by advertising). The company disappeared before it started connecting users, AFAIK. The website (www.hopon.com.au) is dead but the internet archive has a copy. That's obviously the same logo.

They're also the same guys who did
Free DSL not too long ago.

Pretty cool, that internet bubble was.

...is increasing the bottom line for companies that wish to market products in Quebec, and might succeed in causing some products to simply not be sold there.

Might be slightly off-topic, but the province of Quebec is well know for doing things totally different from the rest of North America. Case in point: sweepstakes. Notice how you often see "void in Quebec" in the disclaimers? It's basically because of a stupid provincial law that stipulates that to have a contest held in Quebec, or opened to Quebec residents, the organizer of the sweepstakes has to give a percentage of the value of the prize to the gaming commission in case there's a dispute when the prize is awarded to a Quebec resident. The kicker? It's NOT refundable!

Check it out if you don't believe me! (the website has been offline for some time, hence the archive.org link)

There's a french saying: "Vive la difference!" but I seriously think the Quebec governement takes it way too far.

I remember downloading Tripping the Rift in about 1998. (Just checked the wayback machine. Yep, I remembered correctly.) I've seen ads for it recently so it is the same character for the tv show, but what I downloaded was not even close to being appropriate for television.

Maybe there's a new push, but they never stopped looking for people

Oh, I had the exact same idea as you! Except the year was 1996 and the site was Altavista. Couldn't live without it. Thank Goodness the government didn't nationalize and subsidize them making the emergence of Google as a successful, profitable, private, limited liability corporation next to impossible. But now that we have Google maybe we should reconsider your plan, I mean, nothing could ever get better than this, right?

Sure, Google may have come from nowhere to become profitable while providing a huge amount of value not only to the people who risked piles of time and money on the enterprise, but also to the public at large and their customers. But of course mutual benefit through voluntary association and private property just usually isn't possible in a capitalist system, this is an anomaly and it must be protected.

I also rely on Debian daily for job related activities; I know a lot of people who do. Maybe final decision making power for Debian should be removed from the technical committee and developers and transfered to an appropriations committee of the US Dept of Commerce. I mean, can we really risk such an important piece of technology to a bunch of private individuals. I even heard that one of the former DPLs played a major role at a major corporation in the motion picture industry, while he was involved with Debian!. We all know how greedy and untrustworthy that type is; there is no way of telling how he may have subverted Debian when he had control of it.

Ok now that I've pulled my tongue out of my cheek, could I ask you to put down the Adbusters and spend time every day really thinking about these wonderful things that we rely on and where they came from? Also think about the real freedom to innovate and how that could start to be lost.

And if you do the honourable thing and keep your emigration pact with Alec Baldwin, please don't come to Canada.

WebMachines "iaNetwork" used to support remote storage and management of user preferences, so you could log into any machine managed by iaNetwork and see your data the way you liked. It handled remote updates, individual user preferences, devive settings, etc. See this link, courtesy of the WayBack Machine for a look at the (sadly, defunct) WebMachines iaNetwork. The iaNetwork "Identity Server" and iaNetwork "Device Server" seem most relevant to the patent in question.

Explanation.

I personally have trust in Google for right now.

I have next to none. I have firsthand experience with how they treat objectionable content... they simply refuse to index it.

I have a site that I haven't even bothered working on anymore because of this: holocaustnow.org. Shortly after it was first created, I was both indexed on Google and archived in the WayBackMachine.

Then, about three months later, I was dropped from both sites. Queries to both organizations went unanswered. Subsequent attempts to have the site re-indexed proved futile.

It can't be an issue with the virtual hosting my service provider uses since Google had indexed it in the past.

And why the WayBackMachine would ever deign to remove something it has already archived makes no sense to me whatsoever.

So I am eagerly awaiting the day when Google falls. I see now that altavista is willing to index the site; this is giving me the incentive to come out with the badly needed version 2. The more diversity there is, the less likely the new Google's will try pulling shit like this.

.... and contact Archive.org

Ugh this is depressing.

Remember Hotmail? The original nice and simple hotmail? The one that didn't have a zillion ads, didn't run like a slothpig, and didn't delete peoples e-mail after a few days. The one whose service didn't get worse and worse while fees for services once free increased?

Decemeber 31 1997 rolls around and the beast (fat beast) comes and assimilates a once great service. At first it isn't so bad, just a little MS logo or mention here and there. But now check it out.

Ugh this is depressing.

Remember Hotmail? The original nice and simple hotmail? The one that didn't have a zillion ads, didn't run like a slothpig, and didn't delete peoples e-mail after a few days. The one whose service didn't get worse and worse while fees for services once free increased?

Decemeber 31 1997 rolls around and the beast (fat beast) comes and assimilates a once great service. At first it isn't so bad, just a little MS logo or mention here and there. But now check it out.

And you shall recieve.

And you shall recieve.

And you shall recieve.

They don't seem to be blocking archive.org.

There are a lot of missing dates, but it looks to me like whitehouse.gov had a major site redesign sometime between Jul 13 and Sep 13 2001, and that when the new site was released they started putting in lots of the disallow statments for certain paths.

From Jul 13:
7-13 Whitehouse.gov
7-13 Robots.txt

From Sep 13:
9-13 Whitehouse.gov
9-13 Robots.txt

It seems to me like the simplest explanation is just that their redesigned site has multiple paths to the same information, and for some reason they felt that their search engine rankings would improve if they eliminated superfluous paths. Although I'll admit it's suspicious that their old robots.txt from 2 years ago had 151 Disallows, and the one from today has 1552 Disallows, while the site uses basically the same navigation structure.

There are a lot of missing dates, but it looks to me like whitehouse.gov had a major site redesign sometime between Jul 13 and Sep 13 2001, and that when the new site was released they started putting in lots of the disallow statments for certain paths.

From Jul 13:
7-13 Whitehouse.gov
7-13 Robots.txt

From Sep 13:
9-13 Whitehouse.gov
9-13 Robots.txt

It seems to me like the simplest explanation is just that their redesigned site has multiple paths to the same information, and for some reason they felt that their search engine rankings would improve if they eliminated superfluous paths. Although I'll admit it's suspicious that their old robots.txt from 2 years ago had 151 Disallows, and the one from today has 1552 Disallows, while the site uses basically the same navigation structure.

There are a lot of missing dates, but it looks to me like whitehouse.gov had a major site redesign sometime between Jul 13 and Sep 13 2001, and that when the new site was released they started putting in lots of the disallow statments for certain paths.

From Jul 13:
7-13 Whitehouse.gov
7-13 Robots.txt

From Sep 13:
9-13 Whitehouse.gov
9-13 Robots.txt

It seems to me like the simplest explanation is just that their redesigned site has multiple paths to the same information, and for some reason they felt that their search engine rankings would improve if they eliminated superfluous paths. Although I'll admit it's suspicious that their old robots.txt from 2 years ago had 151 Disallows, and the one from today has 1552 Disallows, while the site uses basically the same navigation structure.

There are a lot of missing dates, but it looks to me like whitehouse.gov had a major site redesign sometime between Jul 13 and Sep 13 2001, and that when the new site was released they started putting in lots of the disallow statments for certain paths.

From Jul 13:
7-13 Whitehouse.gov
7-13 Robots.txt

From Sep 13:
9-13 Whitehouse.gov
9-13 Robots.txt

It seems to me like the simplest explanation is just that their redesigned site has multiple paths to the same information, and for some reason they felt that their search engine rankings would improve if they eliminated superfluous paths. Although I'll admit it's suspicious that their old robots.txt from 2 years ago had 151 Disallows, and the one from today has 1552 Disallows, while the site uses basically the same navigation structure.