Slashdot Mirror

I think we need, at the very least, to set up reliable archiving before we can tackle any other citation questions raised by the nature of the Web. Perhaps a central, trustworthy source could copy a single page at request along and add metadata (date/time of archival, etc.), and then cite that?

The Internet Archive is already pretty much what you describe.

For example,

'John be [sic] tripping. He always [sic] doin' shit like that.'

In this case, the [sic] denotes the use of the infinitive of the copula verb in African-American English Vernacular (AAEV) to mean a habitual action; the second is used to mark the elision of the copula verb in the sentence.

Using sic for grammatical differences between the quotee's dialect and your own seem like really poor form to me. Particularly as people would probably only do it for dialects they consider less prestigious. For example, you'd never see the following in an American publication:

(1) I've [sic] a lot of money.
(2) He goes to university [sic].
(3) John smokes a lot any more [sic].

(1) and (2) are definitely not Standard American English, but the way those Brits talk is just so sexy!

I find (3) baffling, and I believe most American English speakers agree. (Positive 'anymore' is actually my favorite example of a dialectical difference. On one hand, it's a pretty dramatic grammatical difference. When I first noticed it, I was really surprised and assumed I must not have heard the 'not'. At the same time, it's a difference with no social significance attached to it. It's not looked down upon or thought prestigious. It's not culturally associated with any group. (With good reason. Positive 'anymore' is distributed pretty erratically.) People don't generally notice it. When you ask people if they can say it, they either (a) get confused - of course, why wouldn't they be able to? - or (b) get confused - of course not, no one says that!)

If you're going to pepper quotes from blacks, American Southerners, English Northerners, etc. with a "look at how funny they talk!" marker, you should probably do it for every quote that doesn't conform to your country's standard variety of English. People with different dialects aren't getting things wrong, they're playing by different rules. You wouldn't put a sic after every word in a Spanish quote, right?

I'd like to reserve sic for actual errors of some sort: disfluencies, spelling and punctuation mistakes (not separate spelling traditions, like 'organize' vs. 'organise'), typos, and maybe using the wrong word or name for something (not just a term used regularly by people other than yourself like 'pop' vs. 'soda'; an individual mistake: 'His brother was the mayor [sic] of Florida!'). If a writer or speaker is regularly following some linguistic community's rules, they should be spared the dreaded sic.

It was a lot higher in the 90s even. In particular with Apple's focus on getting into schools.

Check out Apple's website from 1996:

According to a report from Quality Education Data, the Macintosh now accounts for 41% of the K-12 education market, up 5% from last year, and is the computer of choice for 55% of school purchases in 1996-97.

That was before Jobs came back to Apple.

I got Quad G5 and I am _just_ beginning to see that they are actually used in Mac OS X Leopard (threaded spotlight, diskutil bz2) and Adobe Flash (Version 10 beta uses all). As a video guy, parallel processing is a life saver but it all depends on the developer. Even sometimes some real stupid decisions. E.g. OS X Quicktime encoder will use only 2 CPUs/Cores while encoding H264 while open source solutions or freeware can go up to 4 CPUs (I bet 8 on opto-xeon). Note that I am speaking from video perspective which is relatively simple to parallel process (divide it to number of CPUs and process)

I was watching the Computer Chronicles, a very old episode and they were talking about our issue in 1980s. It was a super computer programming problem, how to make programs actually using the massive parallelism, new development concepts, how to "teach" developers to use multiple CPUs.

http://www.archive.org/details/CC126_supercomputers

That is from 1984! It is amazing that we actually get impressed when Adobe Flash 10 beta uses 400% CPU (in a good sense) in 2008. So the problem is not solved at all :)

Every time I see someone post this, it saddens me -- Communities.com (the folks that own the domain now are completely unrelated) aka Electric Communities built a secure, distributed virtual world (under the names ECHabitats/Microcosm), in the mid-to-late nineties. Most people didn't get it.

It's obvious that, having seen Second Life, people are starting to understand -- "Hey, having things on centralized servers kind of sucks. I want to run my own 'sim', and be able to connect it to other peoples'"

There are few traces of the project left on the 'net -- a few mentions in Koster's MUD history timeline and a few entries in the internet archive...

Hopefully someone will pick up the idea and run with it one of these days.

Electricity wise that's just plain not efficient. There was a story posted here a while back about how Hollywood studios were having the same issue.

As I wrote, it depends on the application.

Anything with larges amounts of quiescent (unchanging) data that does not to be online is going to lose big-time. Most movie footage is going to fall into that category; it never changes once shot, and most of it is rarely looked at after post-production finishes. They only keep it around for posterity and "Special Edition" edits.

But take somebody like The Wayback Machine. What I described is more-or-less how they manage their storage. (Or was, when I read about it a year or three ago.) The whole archive needs to be online at all times anyway, so it's a win for them.

One size does not fit all.

And somehow, DARPA is connected to this... "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is the Primary sponsor of Reiser4." http://web.archive.org/web/20070109223217/http://www.namesys.com/

Google cache
Wayback machine (February 2007)

Could it be Juice?
http://web.archive.org/web/20010408174718/caesar.ics.uci.edu/juice/intro.html

It's been around for a while. The oldest item on the tracker is from March 24, 2004. Ther earliest version on archive.org is from December 12, 2003. I guess this is a "re-launch" though, it's no longer just a flat list of torrents.

This used to be a free service up until at least August 12, 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070812051918rn_1/www.legaltorrents.com/index.htm

Why would anyone use this when archive.org (and etree) allows you to upload music for free in flac,shn,mp3,and ogg? Nine Inch Nails is up on archive.org:
http://www.archive.org/details/nineinchnails_ghosts_I_IV
http://www.archive.org/details/nine_inch_nails_the_slip

If archive.org can host NIN's music without problems, they can certainly host less popular music. Use and donate to archive.org rather than this "beta" service.

This used to be a free service up until at least August 12, 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070812051918rn_1/www.legaltorrents.com/index.htm

Why would anyone use this when archive.org (and etree) allows you to upload music for free in flac,shn,mp3,and ogg? Nine Inch Nails is up on archive.org:
http://www.archive.org/details/nineinchnails_ghosts_I_IV
http://www.archive.org/details/nine_inch_nails_the_slip

If archive.org can host NIN's music without problems, they can certainly host less popular music. Use and donate to archive.org rather than this "beta" service.

This used to be a free service up until at least August 12, 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070812051918rn_1/www.legaltorrents.com/index.htm

Why would anyone use this when archive.org (and etree) allows you to upload music for free in flac,shn,mp3,and ogg? Nine Inch Nails is up on archive.org:
http://www.archive.org/details/nineinchnails_ghosts_I_IV
http://www.archive.org/details/nine_inch_nails_the_slip

If archive.org can host NIN's music without problems, they can certainly host less popular music. Use and donate to archive.org rather than this "beta" service.

Another good place to check for legally redistributable works is The Internet Archive, one of the most important sites on the Internet.

They host a lot of things across a wide spectrum of interests. They are the place hosting the digital archives for organizations that frequently publish new work (such as news programs and audio labels). Big files are okay there as well: You might be interested in a copy of the DVDs for "Big Buck Bunny" (most of the material on the DVDs are licensed CC-BY 3.0), The Story of Stuff (my copy of this came with a signed note that said I should "Feel free to copy and share it freely for any non-commercial use".

Another good place to check for legally redistributable works is The Internet Archive, one of the most important sites on the Internet.

They host a lot of things across a wide spectrum of interests. They are the place hosting the digital archives for organizations that frequently publish new work (such as news programs and audio labels). Big files are okay there as well: You might be interested in a copy of the DVDs for "Big Buck Bunny" (most of the material on the DVDs are licensed CC-BY 3.0), The Story of Stuff (my copy of this came with a signed note that said I should "Feel free to copy and share it freely for any non-commercial use".

Another good place to check for legally redistributable works is The Internet Archive, one of the most important sites on the Internet.

They host a lot of things across a wide spectrum of interests. They are the place hosting the digital archives for organizations that frequently publish new work (such as news programs and audio labels). Big files are okay there as well: You might be interested in a copy of the DVDs for "Big Buck Bunny" (most of the material on the DVDs are licensed CC-BY 3.0), The Story of Stuff (my copy of this came with a signed note that said I should "Feel free to copy and share it freely for any non-commercial use".

Archive.org disagrees with you that if you post it on your own website your privacy is safe. No one but your host may be able to tell who watched the video and when, but the video will be captured for all to search for.

Forever.

...what will Big Media do if they do manage to "conquer piracy" and they still don't sell more crappy content than they do now? I know I rarely bother to "pirate" any of the crap they think is so hot, there is so much niche, antique, and "unavailable" stuff that I prefer now. Lots of it really is free on the archive, among other places.

They'll continue to claim piracy losses and work towards instituting taxes on anything that could conceivably be used in conjunction with copying works. Hard drives, CDs/DVDs, flash drives, Internet connections, portable media players, etc. One thing's for sure. There's no stopping them.

...what will Big Media do if they do manage to "conquer piracy" and they still don't sell more crappy content than they do now? I know I rarely bother to "pirate" any of the crap they think is so hot, there is so much niche, antique, and "unavailable" stuff that I prefer now. Lots of it really is free on the archive, among other places.

Archive's copy loads faster...
http://web.archive.org/web/20070701004404/http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~maverick/VimColorSchemeTest/index-pl.html

What's extra funny is that that Simpsons bit is itself a reference to an old educational video.

As I have been pointing out for years now, ECMA publishes documents that contain unlicensed patented technology of member companies.

That's because the member companies agree to allow those patents to be used to implement the standards. Microsoft statement:

The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.

But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose.

So yes, they're patented, but everyone is free to use those technologies.

So despite your unknowledgeable remark about not needing MS or the sanctity of MONO, The ECMA standards belong to Microsoft and they can kill MONO any time they want.

No, they can't. It's a shame that you've been misleading people "for years now" by spreading this FUD.

.NET is the tool by which they destroy third party development.

Only in your imagination, sir.

There used to be a place for that.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031229082928/http%3A//opengov.media.mit.edu/

ICANN is a TERRIBLY badly managed organization, in my opinion.

I'm keeping a list of stories about GoDaddy on Slashdot, in order by date:
Go Daddy Usurps Network Solutions (2005-05-04)
GoDaddy Serves Blank Pages to Safari & Opera (2005-12-08)
GoDaddy.com Dumps Linux for Microsoft (2006-03-23)
GoDaddy Holds Domains Hostage (2006-06-17)
GoDaddy Caves To Irish Legal Threat (2006-09-16)
MySpace and GoDaddy Shut Down Security Site (2007-01-26)
That incident prompted this web site:
Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names. According to this March 11, 2008 story in Wired, GoDaddy shut down an entire web site of 250,000 pages because of one archived mailing list comment: GoDaddy Silences Police-Watchdog Site RateMyCop.com. See below for Slashdot's story about RateMyCop.com.
Alternative Registrars to GoDaddy? (2007-02-03)
GoDaddy Bobbles DST Changeover? (2007-03-11)
850K RegisterFly Domains Moved To GoDaddy (2007-05-29)
GoDaddy Silences RateMyCop.com (2008-03-12)
ICANN Moves Against GoDaddy Domain Lockdowns (2008-04-08)
GoDaddy VP Caught Bidding Against Customers (2008-06-29)

Any error or stories not included?

GoDaddy's reputation is not just one of a negative stories. In my opinion, GoDaddy tries to confuse non-technical people by offering services they don't need that are presented as valuable.

Here are some of the opinions of Bob Parsons, the owner of GoDaddy. He is pro-violence: Close Gitmo? No way!!

This is 9+ year old technology that he continually repackages.
Caspian Networks was founded in 1999 based on this very concept. It failed as a large router, then it failed as a traffic management platform, and now it's rearing it ugly head again. I would say the "third time's a charm", but I've lost track of actually how many iterations we've seen over the last 9 years.

Here's the original company's site from 2000:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000711075418/www.caspiannetworks.com/company.html

Here's a page from 2002 that starts discussing QoS and "differentiated services"
http://web.archive.org/web/20021207223724/www.caspiannetworks.com/solutions/services.shtml

This is 9+ year old technology that he continually repackages.
Caspian Networks was founded in 1999 based on this very concept. It failed as a large router, then it failed as a traffic management platform, and now it's rearing it ugly head again. I would say the "third time's a charm", but I've lost track of actually how many iterations we've seen over the last 9 years.

Here's the original company's site from 2000:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000711075418/www.caspiannetworks.com/company.html

Here's a page from 2002 that starts discussing QoS and "differentiated services"
http://web.archive.org/web/20021207223724/www.caspiannetworks.com/solutions/services.shtml

Well, since LimitNone's own website says that they are "...a leading provider of" <snip>

• Archive.org
• Google Cache

This stuff is cool either way, even if it is just "childish spam." Many of us only dream to work on something that will become this large scale.

Facebook started off (stolen idea or not) as a site with some php and a database. In the early years there were no applications or photos. They've managed to scale PHP beyond what most slashdotters will say PHP can even do. They've even contributed some of their stuff back to the PHP community.

Look at some other similar 'home grown' sites that have had to quickly scale and invent stuff just to stay a float.
Archive.org has their pentabox
Google has their Google File System and all of their own hard ware design.

Hopefully the site will recover. 540TB of data and 500k images per second while at the same time being able to process photos near instantly in the background to 4-5 different sizes is nothing to ignore. Fortune 500 companies could probably learn a thing or two...

Wikipedia's pretty impressive, but how about the Internet Archive? Also a non-profit that doesn't run ads, and not only do they, like Google and Yahoo, "download the Internet" on a regular basis, but the Archive makes backups! Plus, they have huge amounts of streaming audio and video (pd or creative-commons). The first time I ever heard the word "Petabyte" being discussed in practical, real world terms (as in, "we're taking delivery next month") was in connection with the Internet Archive. Several years ago. And it was being used in the plural! :)

They may not have as much incoming traffic as Wikipedia, but the sheer volume of data they manage is truly staggering. (Heck, they have multiple copies of Wikipedia!) When I do download something from there, it's typically in the 80-150 MB range, and 1 or 2 GB in a pop isn't unusual, and I know I'm not the only one downloading, so their bandwidth bills must still be pretty impressive.

The fact that these two sites manage to survive and thrive the way they do never ceases to amaze me.

It's a minor problem in that it's simple to solve. It only takes several months, because it requries[sic] rewriting, from scratch, a sizeable portion of the code.

Sun is trying to compete against Microsoft for the corporate market, but no matter how many job offers there are for Java, they still lag behind Python, Perl, and Ruby in the preference of open source developers.

We are 5 or even 10 years behind in computing thanks to MS. Think about it. Who wasn't in 32bit computing except MS customers back in 1995? Did you see the Netscape 4 demos which seriously drove them into panic that time? Now we are beginning to talk about Web services in freaking 2008 and people still suffer when they try it with IE.
You better watch Archive.org "computer chronicles" videos and think what would happen if MS wasn't in scene with their business tactics and backwards products.
http://www.archive.org/details/computerchronicles
People were video editing on their Amigas back in 1991 for instance.

Here is proof .

'I'm really surprised that we are actually seeing DRM free eBooks, I though this would take much longer to come about... I plan to buy a few to at least support the concept. I hope though the final title list presents some more interesting titles...'

I was happily supporting this concept up until a couple of years ago, when O'Reilly decided to abandon their excellent series of 'CD Bookshelf' titles, which had a series of 4-6 related titles on CD in DRM-free HTML format, bundled with a printed version of one of the books:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050113090049/http://cdbookshelves.oreilly.com/

They were reasonably priced, included major mainstream titles like 'Programming Perl', and were nicely x-referenced with appropriate hyperlinks, pretty much an ideal format for reference material. Now the only way to get anything like this is to subscribe to Safari and 'rent' the books. I'd much rather have the HTML Bookshelves back in updated versions than a few PDFs about Facebook, Vista and the iPhone.

The suggestion that artistic and entertainment creations would continue to be made in the same volume or quality with the creators being given nothing in return is utterly ridiculous.

I used write and want to work as a photographer and thought the same way. However I'm starting to think copyrights aren't needed. Open source software has shown money can still be made, though admittedly not as much as Microsoft makes, by sharing. The Grateful Dead made money yet allowed, heck encouraged, concert goers to record the performances and share them. Those who like writers, some at least, will be willing to pay a writer for what they like to read. A few years ago someone gave me this suggestion when I said copyrights were needed, have a pdf of a book people can download to read. Then if they like it, some people will buy a signed and printed edition of the book from the writer. As for my photos, one thing I'm planning to do is to have low resolution pics online then allow those who want to buy one to pay for a high resolution digital file and or professionally printed large print. I could even print large format books for people, that's getting to be a pretty big money earner for wedding photogs. Bride and Groom, and friends and relatives can order books with the photos they want.

Professional photographers have to go through a lot of this, but they can still make money and pay the bills.

I wonder what the "3D Visuals and Animations" people at http://www.paralleldimension.co.uk/ think of their earlier incarnation's efforts: http://web.archive.org/web/20010203234000/www.paralleldimension.co.uk/home.htm I thought I'd lost this! (and 74m to beat..)

Check this out....it reads like a free software update blog :) http://web.archive.org/web/19980113191222/http://slashdot.org/

>Or do they try to index every single lame personal page, unless the owner opts out?

I can state to an absolute certainty that they do index very lame sites.

One of my first web pages ever. Very lame indeed!

http://web.archive.org/web/20010404062818/http://loether.com/

Check this out....it reads like a free software update blog :)
http://web.archive.org/web/19980113191222/http://slashdot.org/

While I love the wayback machine, a little "problem" creped in a couple of years ago that is still there... and it drives me nuts.

At one point, I forgot to renew my domain name and a squatter snatched it up the second it was available. I have since lost the html/java applets/images/etc that I had originally there. I used to show people what it looked like via the wayback machine. But you can't do it anymore. Example: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.mindchild.net

Apparently, the current squatter put a robots.txt on that domain, and wayback refuses to show any ARCHIVED pages where the domain CURRENTLY has a robots.txt. I emailed them about it, and after a couple of months, I actually got a reply pretty much saying "That is just the way it is. We are underfunded and have no time to fix it. Sorry".

So if for some reason you don't want to have your site viewable via the wayback machine, just put up a robots.txt. It doesn't even need to contain anything.

Also linked from the wikipedia article is a biograpical documentary film about Otlet, mostly in English with some French, hosted by archive.org .

"Girls with Network Equipment" (including cables) close enough?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060112033557/http://hwpr0n.se/

You can use them to help homeless men & women now.

*ahem*

http://web.archive.org/web/*/alex.kozinski.com/*

You just have to know how to look ;)

Nothing too interesting on archive.org. A video of him on the dating game was about the most interesting thing I found.

http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/alex.kozinski.com/underneathmyrobe/datinggame.rm

*ahem*

http://web.archive.org/web/*/alex.kozinski.com/*

You just have to know how to look ;)

Nothing too interesting on archive.org. A video of him on the dating game was about the most interesting thing I found.

http://web.archive.org/web/*hh_/alex.kozinski.com/underneathmyrobe/datinggame.rm

My guess: Ethanol can easily be turned into aromatic chemicals like benzene, toluene, xylene. These have very high octane when burned as fuel in a gasoline engine. (Both web pages state that this technology will first be used to replace aviation gasoline, which is higher octane than automotive gas and still uses lead.)

Looking back at the archive, it's said that for several years: http://web.archive.org/web/20050122134257/http://alex.kozinski.com/

The Wayback Machine might hold some interest here, if you can finagle it into giving you what you want.

For example, this URL looks potentially interesting (and scary for that matter): http://web.archive.org/web/20060621092124/http://alex.kozinski.com/underneathmyrobe/ but there isn't much there (at least that works).

A Google search for 'site:alex.kozinski.com' shows a lot of links to pages on that domain. It's possible one of them was for this "personal storage location", but I doubt anyone will find anything via Google/Wayback. That said, Google does have a tendency to dig up "hidden" stuff, so who knows.

The bad news: the site is down. "Safari can't open the page 'http://alex.kozinski.com/' because it could not connect to the server 'alex.kozinski.com'"

The good news: it's in the Wayback machine.

The bad news: the Wayback machine just shows "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre" on the main page, from 2004 through the last snapshot in 2005. (The news story saying that this is a recent change is apparently wrong).

http://web.archive.org/web/20070404023314/http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

PJ sang the praises of file sharing years ago but well. We are all richer if we share and artists benefit most of all through well earned fame. If we don't share all we are left with 19th century distribution efficiency and ratings. Many people do share their work and P2P of the same is perfectly legitimate, but idiotic laws make that difficult.

I'm not going to bother reading this article because I know enough already. We have already seen how the Media Defender dirt bags attack trackers by stuffing them with RIAA crap and DoS attack. Big publishers have no place in the P2P world and would rather eliminate free press than give up their position in the world. They may be punished for that but that won't cure copyright laws that are equally obsolete.

Copyright needs to allow us to share our culture without worry. To that end, non commercial personal copy should be allowed.