Slashdot Mirror

Amongst a lot of other good things (such as incremental backups of the worldwide web), archive.org also hosts a lot of music by various netlabels. This gives you access to much more good music than you're likely to have time to listen to, in a variety of genres. In particular, the chiptune inspired dance music of the label 8bitpeoples should go down well with the Slashdot crowd.

Did some research into this, since I was all for hearing about lawyers making fools of themselves.

However, I don't think that actually happened... See FAQ 1.5 at
http://web.archive.org/web/20010803004755/http://pan.rebelbase.com/faq.html (as of Aug 3, 2001)

It really makes me sad that everyone replying to this thinks that they understand "The universe and everyting".
Science is great, and i don't like the idea of the huts and mud. But you should not be so arrogant when approacing the critics. Science has advanced a lot the last fifty years, but what makes you think that suddenly every scientific proof is perfect? Have you
heard of DDT?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_Box_(television_documentary_series) http://www.archive.org/details/Pandoras_Box_DVD_2_of_3 Some people are against abortion, and against meddeling with nature's recipe for life, without being religous fanatics or "tree huggers".

From article: "Until updates are made available, users should only play FLAC files from trusted sources. To date, however, FLAC files are rarely seen in the wild."

Ironic since I read this article while listening to a just downloaded Devo show in flac format. Considering the number of live music torrent sites ( e.g. archive.org,trader's den, etree , and dime a dozen) that mostly offer FLAC I am surprised by the statement. I also would think that people wanting lossless quality audio will be checking their hashes anyways for audio integrity and it won't be a problem. There is also a difference in leaching an album in FLAC off a torrent site and audiophiles listening to live music, the former would be inclined to listen to mp3 rips anyways. Good to know, but the security implications seem a stretch.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070830091736/http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=NOB_C37_C

Here are some of the claims made:

[quote]The sound becomes much more open and free flowing with a nice improvement in resolution. Dynamics are better and overall naturalness is improved. Here is a test for all you Silver Rock owners. Try removing the bakelite knobs and listen. You will be shocked by this! The signature knobs will have an even greater effect...really amazing! The point here is the micro vibrations created by the volume pots and knobs find their way into the delicate signal path and cause degradation (Bad vibrations equal bad sound). With the signature knobs micro vibrations from the C37 concept of wood, bronze and the lacquer itself compensate for the volume pots and provide (Good Vibrations) our ear/brain combination like to hear...way better sound!![/quote]

Complete and utter bullshit, of course, but great for separating gullible yuppies from their money.

A few years ago, I received many stock spams for "XLPI.PK", or Xcel Plus, which sells fuel and lubricant additives. Such additives are referred to in the automotive industry as "mouse milk"; they usually don't do much, and may make things worse. That whole category of products is mostly bogus.

Back then, their web site contained endorsements from the FAA and the US Army. The web site reproduced a a letter of endorsement appearing to be from an FAA representative. I thought this was a bit strange, so I sent off a note to the regional FAA office asking if it was legitimate.

A few weeks later, I got a call from an anti-terrorism investigator at NCIS. Someone at the FAA had looked at the letter and the web site. They apparently didn't like what they saw, and referred the matter for investigation of the use of unapproved lubricants in military equipment. That comes under the "sabotaging the war effort" laws, which brings in military investigators.

I'm not sure what happened thereafter, but the spamming stopped and "XLPI.PK" is now trading at $0.001.

A few years ago, I received many stock spams for "XLPI.PK", or Xcel Plus, which sells fuel and lubricant additives. Such additives are referred to in the automotive industry as "mouse milk"; they usually don't do much, and may make things worse. That whole category of products is mostly bogus.

Back then, their web site contained endorsements from the FAA and the US Army. The web site reproduced a a letter of endorsement appearing to be from an FAA representative. I thought this was a bit strange, so I sent off a note to the regional FAA office asking if it was legitimate.

A few weeks later, I got a call from an anti-terrorism investigator at NCIS. Someone at the FAA had looked at the letter and the web site. They apparently didn't like what they saw, and referred the matter for investigation of the use of unapproved lubricants in military equipment. That comes under the "sabotaging the war effort" laws, which brings in military investigators.

I'm not sure what happened thereafter, but the spamming stopped and "XLPI.PK" is now trading at $0.001.

Unfortunately I can't make much of your link -- most of it is in German, which I can't read, and there is a huge amount of material that would take me a decade to process. I have no idea where I'd even begin to make a comparison.

I have yet to see a specific example of a dead field that is not superceeded by some other field that answers the same questions in a better way, or made trivial by computers (both of these cases I would consider to be compression of knowledge). Please do point one out if you know of such an example.

There are a smallish number of modern books which teach it, but most staple DE courses have regressed to teaching collections of tricks and simple numerical methods, while courses on Lie algebras have other priorities and certainly don't teach any of that, even though it was the birth of the whole subject.

FWIW the in the example I cited the author discusses explicitly the goal of compressing proofs and explanations.

Can you point me to the fraudulent advertising? If you believe that subscribing to broadband means "maximum possible bandwith all of the time" then you are an idiot. No one pretends to offer that, and the big ol' words "up to" are in every add ever seen.

Comcast is the id10t for advertising unlimited use for a flat monthly fee. Sure they don't do that anymore. But then again I didn't receive the memo that THEY changed the terms of service when I was a customer.

Some people call it bait and switch.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/183702832 -- This one in Illinois http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/07/tech/main707361.shtml -- This one in Florida http://web.archive.org/web/20060701105145/http://www.katu.com/stories/87037.html -- This one in Washington http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.html -- And another story about the Michigan guy, for those who missed it As dumb as it sounds, to be arrested for using technology the way it was designed, it is happening. Just because computers running Windows automatically do it by default, does not mean you won't get arrested. It's ridiculous, but true. Welcome to the 21st century, where it's considered a felony(by cops and judges) to turn on a standard wifi enabled computer running Windows.

Reminds me of this link from 2003 (no pics on the archive though :-( ).

I believe your not-so-fuzzy memory is recalling the Hand Held HERF contest, which can be found archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20040608055602/www.voltsamps.com/pages/projects/hhh/. Seems like HERF has been around forever, but for some reason it's always hard to find good info on it. Slava takes down the site altogether not too long after that archive snapshot "due to the abuse of this site's content".

Actually, you can notify Wikipedia of copyright violations. They're usually pretty good about following up. As for how to know which came first, one way is with The Wayback Machine.

I had some stuff copied off of a web page and made into a wikipedia article. I reported it as soon as I became aware of it and within a few days, the page was replaced. I don't know if they're always that responsive. It probably depends on who monitors the pages in question.

The browser speed test you cite is bogus. Firefox, during all of my time being involved with its development and release, has always been faster at start-up, new window, and pageload, than the Suite, (with the possible exception of startup with the suite with the preloader on (turbo mode) Even then, on the hardware I had during the development of every pre-1.0 release of Firefox, Firefox bead Suite in turbo mode on a first start after reboot).

The speed test matches my experience. As for the Suite with turbo mode, you had to get a computer with so little memory that it was constantly swapping to disk for the browser window to not come up instantaneously with turbo mode on.

And that bullshit about telling users not to download Mozilla is just that, bullshit. You're remembering pre Mozilla 1.0 days. I was responsible for those pages and when I shipped 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7,and all of the dot releases in between, all of them messaged the Suite as a strong and community supported end-user offering. Claiming otherwise is simply lying.

Here's the Mozilla 1.3 download page from 2003, with the warnings still there. It's the same text that was there since the 0.x releases. Archive.org doesn't seem to have the download pages for 1.4+, at least not on the random dates I tried.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030401090222/www.mozilla.org/releases/#1.3

http://web.archive.org/web/20070820040423/http://www.e-sheep.com/Saturnalia/

The browser speed test you cite is bogus. Firefox, during all of my time being involved with its development and release, has always been faster at start-up, new window, and pageload, than the Suite

Yet there are plenty of users who switch to SeaMonkey that mention it being faster for them than Firefox. Further evidence is that when SeaMonkey switched from XPFE to toolkit there was a performance hit.

And that bullshit about telling users not to download Mozilla is just that, bullshit. You're remembering pre Mozilla 1.0 days. I was responsible for those pages and when I shipped 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7,and all of the dot releases in between, all of them messaged the Suite as a strong and community supported end-user offering. Claiming otherwise is simply lying.

If you were really there, you would remember how 1.0, 1.4 and 1.7 were stable releases, with the 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 releases being technology previews, and 1.5 and 1.6 being something inbetween.

• Look at this page. Note how it says "We make binary versions of Mozilla 1.0 available for testing purposes only! We provide no end user support.". It also says "We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.". It is like that even when Mozilla 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are released.

• And a version of this page in mid-2003, where it says "our latest stable development branch".

You also haven't addressed the fact that Firefox got a lot of marketing which the Suite never did.

The browser speed test you cite is bogus. Firefox, during all of my time being involved with its development and release, has always been faster at start-up, new window, and pageload, than the Suite

Yet there are plenty of users who switch to SeaMonkey that mention it being faster for them than Firefox. Further evidence is that when SeaMonkey switched from XPFE to toolkit there was a performance hit.

And that bullshit about telling users not to download Mozilla is just that, bullshit. You're remembering pre Mozilla 1.0 days. I was responsible for those pages and when I shipped 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7,and all of the dot releases in between, all of them messaged the Suite as a strong and community supported end-user offering. Claiming otherwise is simply lying.

If you were really there, you would remember how 1.0, 1.4 and 1.7 were stable releases, with the 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 releases being technology previews, and 1.5 and 1.6 being something inbetween.

• Look at this page. Note how it says "We make binary versions of Mozilla 1.0 available for testing purposes only! We provide no end user support.". It also says "We do not guarantee that any source code or executable code available from the mozilla.org domain is Year 2000 compliant.". It is like that even when Mozilla 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 are released.

• And a version of this page in mid-2003, where it says "our latest stable development branch".

You also haven't addressed the fact that Firefox got a lot of marketing which the Suite never did.

If you want to see the similarities between the Islamist and Neocon movements you owe it to yourself to see this: http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares

This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.

Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2

An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.

This item is part of the collection: Feature Films

Producer: Adam Curtis
Production Company: BBC
Audio/Visual: sound, color
Keywords: Adam Curtis

http://web.archive.org/web/20051220092744/csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/SP800-56_7-5-05.pdf

Nice try, but this exact paragraph was in the draft version of SP800-56 as well...

Swing and a miss...

What about terrorism, you ask? We absolutely condemn it. Terrorism is cowardly, moronic, and counter-productive. All that terrorism brings is more oppressive laws and the ability of law enforcement to invade into our lives even more (see the various Anti-Terrorism Bills since 1995). Bomb-making and other such illegal activities are strictly prohibited by the Michigan Militia Corps, we have even kicked several individuals out of our organization and turned them into the local Sheriff for partaking in such activities. We do not condone it, period.

You might want to have a look at this:

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

"This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today. From the introduction to Part 1:

"Both [the Islamists and Neoconservatives] were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. And both had a very similar explanation for what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created todays nightmare vision of a secret, organized evil that threatens the world. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful. " The Power of Nightmares, Baby It's Cold Outside.

Part 1 - Baby it's Cold Outside | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 2 - The Phantom Victory | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2
Part 3 - The Shadows in the Cave | 64kbps | 256 kbps | mpeg2

An NTSC DVD ISO is available to make burning this to DVD easier.

This item is part of the collection: Feature Films"

Red Sparowes... dark, moody
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Aetree%20AND%20creator%3A%22Red%20Sparowes%22

Vienna Teng
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Aetree%20AND%20creator%3A%22Vienna%20Teng%22

and this guy: Rich Johnson of the former Central PA,USA band Blue Corduroy.
http://www.richjohnsonarts.com/

I'm not sure if Rich is offering any downloads though they did (still do?) have a myspace page where you could sample his amazing guitar work. Watching him play the guitar was like watching a majic show. He'd work pedal after pedal, often at the same time, and sing as the only guitar in the band. His wife has an amazing voice, pretty, too, but you didn't hear that from me :-).

Red Sparowes... dark, moody
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Aetree%20AND%20creator%3A%22Red%20Sparowes%22

Vienna Teng
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Aetree%20AND%20creator%3A%22Vienna%20Teng%22

and this guy: Rich Johnson of the former Central PA,USA band Blue Corduroy.
http://www.richjohnsonarts.com/

I'm not sure if Rich is offering any downloads though they did (still do?) have a myspace page where you could sample his amazing guitar work. Watching him play the guitar was like watching a majic show. He'd work pedal after pedal, often at the same time, and sing as the only guitar in the band. His wife has an amazing voice, pretty, too, but you didn't hear that from me :-).

Some time back, a company called Genesis Europe were going to rollout a VDSL network, what ever became of it I wonder. As for VDSL, this article has something interesting to say about it.

"Mr. Walker .. claims VMSK achieves spectral efficiencies of 90 bits/sec/Hz or more .. These claims are in direct violation of the mathematical principles of digital communications discovered by Harry Nyquist (1928), Claude Shannon (1948), and others"

The VMSK Delusion

was: Re:UpZide Labs

i don't think the case of the frys.com domain name agrees with you here. from wikipedia:

"The URL "www.frys.com" was owned in 1997 by David Peter, who manufactured and sold french-fry vending machines under the business name Frenchy Frys. Fry's Electronics brought suit against him that year, alleging trademark infringement, and ultimately prevailed in a default judgement."

he registered it first. it was a generic term. he was actively using it, not cybersquatting. there was no chance of confusion with the electronics retailer. fry's electronics still took it from him via the courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry's_Electronics

mr peters started posting the court filings and dockets from the case on his site as the case progressed.

http://web.archive.org/web/19970130165743/http://frys.com/

just shows that whoever has more lawyers will probably win, regardless of the law.

(haha! the slashdot CAPTCHA to post this is "stolen"! that's too funny!)

This experiment was really performed. Many times. JBS Haldane is the narrator, and I don't think he'd narrate something that is fake. Watch the full length (and much better resolution) video here:

http://www.archive.org/details/Experime1940

The robots.txt exclusion excluded all of the files in the images/ directory; what this means is that the Internet Archive doesn't actually have those files archived. Drat, and double drat. The catalog is there, which may mean that you can find out who uploaded what and possibly contact them, or discover the source that a file came from, but it's nowhere near as useful as the resource itself. The US-only files on imslpforums.org/files are down at the moment, and the Wayback Machine appears to have archived few if any of them. You might be able to find something at the old list of other music score websites, but that's about all.

"Reefer Madness" was a bunch of lies made to induce fear in people. For instance it makes marijuana smokers as being driven to violence, however there is no scientific data to support this. Actually what science evidence there is show it has the opposite affect, it calms people so they only want to relax. That's why the Soviet Union made it illegal, they couldn't afford people who only wanted to hang out.

(it's now in the public domain-Yay!)

Another movie, also in the public domain, on hemp is the movie "Hemp For Victory" which the US government made to encourage farmers to grow hemp for the WWII war effort. The current president Bush's dad, former president Bush Sr may have had his life saved by hemp. Bush Sr was in a plane that was shot down in the Pacific by the Japanese and he bailed out, the cords from the parachute he used may of had been made from hemp. Hemp was used for ropes as well as cords. Something surprised me when I looked at the Archives page, it has "Reefer Madness" as the fourth, last, movie listed. I've got the link bookmarked, bookmarked it several years ago at least, and never saw "Reefer Madness" listed before. Maybe because it's now in the public domain.

They admit to 'blowing it out of proportion' to get the public's attention to this new menace being brought across the border by Mexicans,

I can see it now, Thomas Jefferson would of been rolling in his grave when the movie came out. TJ was a farmer who grew hemp on his farm, as many other of the USA's Founding Fathers did. Oh, I see you mention George Washington, yeap he grew it. TJ once wrote that there should be a law requiring farmers to grow hemp, but as he knew such a law would deny farmers their rights he never proposed such a law.

Bach to the point, hemp would be a good addition to the biofuel solution. Easy to grow, prolific, and high yield if cultivated.

Yeap, it is and would be good for that.

(As the original submitter of this article) For the applicability in US law, you guys might want to listen to this session recording from Wikimania 2006.

Well, there's always the Internet Archive. Until, I suppose, they take that down. (Apart from the searching not working, you should be able to get to pretty much everything by browsing.) There are nearly nine thousand scores up on the last available snapshot. It's pretty slow, but it's there.

Although it didn't come up in this story with Stephen Colbert, I believe I can address why the Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem when it comes to American electoral politics: Ralph Nader is currently suing the Democrats for the stunts they pulled to keep him off the ballot when he ran in 2004 as an independent. It's worth your while to learn why Nader is suing and ask yourself if you are better served by having a few corporate candidates to choose from or more candidates spanning the political spectrum of ideas on the ballot. Voters aren't sufficiently outraged to support non-Democrat/non-Republican candidates, choosing to not vote at all most times. But their anger at the process is rising while the two major parties put up what Lawrence O'Donnell calls "virtually indistinguishable candidates" (and, let me assure you, after canvassing for signatures to get someone on the ballot in a local Congressional race, I know there's plenty of anger out there on this issue).

If you want to have a more informed view of the power which the Democrats and Republicans hold and how they use that power to keep candidates off the ballot, I suggest looking into

• the materials Nader's lawyer Carl Mayer referenced in his interview on yesterday's Democracy Now! (video and audio in a variety of formats),
• the Open Debates website, particularly their criticisms of the current American presidential televised presentations by which most American voters learn about the allowable range of debate in the US—the televised "debates" are a sham run by a partisan and corporate-sponsored group called the "Commission on Presidential Debates" which is headed by former Democrat and Republican higher-ups
• both discs of the 2-disc DVD "An Unreasonable Man" (a related entry from my blog), the recent documentary about Nader. In the candidacy portion of the movie (which isn't most of what's on these discs), the question before you isn't whether you agree with his politics, it's why he and so many other candidates have a hard time running. The second disc has a series of short videos on apropos topics including "What happened to the Democratic Party?" and "Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S.".

The real rub in Colbert's rejection is that he was polling higher than some Democrats (according to one brief clip Colbert played on his show last night). Perhaps the Democratic Party wanted to be the group that shut those Democratic Party candidates out, not let some citizen show them up and point out how managed American elections really are.

Although it didn't come up in this story with Stephen Colbert, I believe I can address why the Democrats and Republicans are part of the problem when it comes to American electoral politics: Ralph Nader is currently suing the Democrats for the stunts they pulled to keep him off the ballot when he ran in 2004 as an independent. It's worth your while to learn why Nader is suing and ask yourself if you are better served by having a few corporate candidates to choose from or more candidates spanning the political spectrum of ideas on the ballot. Voters aren't sufficiently outraged to support non-Democrat/non-Republican candidates, choosing to not vote at all most times. But their anger at the process is rising while the two major parties put up what Lawrence O'Donnell calls "virtually indistinguishable candidates" (and, let me assure you, after canvassing for signatures to get someone on the ballot in a local Congressional race, I know there's plenty of anger out there on this issue).

If you want to have a more informed view of the power which the Democrats and Republicans hold and how they use that power to keep candidates off the ballot, I suggest looking into

• the materials Nader's lawyer Carl Mayer referenced in his interview on yesterday's Democracy Now! (video and audio in a variety of formats),
• the Open Debates website, particularly their criticisms of the current American presidential televised presentations by which most American voters learn about the allowable range of debate in the US—the televised "debates" are a sham run by a partisan and corporate-sponsored group called the "Commission on Presidential Debates" which is headed by former Democrat and Republican higher-ups
• both discs of the 2-disc DVD "An Unreasonable Man" (a related entry from my blog), the recent documentary about Nader. In the candidacy portion of the movie (which isn't most of what's on these discs), the question before you isn't whether you agree with his politics, it's why he and so many other candidates have a hard time running. The second disc has a series of short videos on apropos topics including "What happened to the Democratic Party?" and "Debating the Role of Third Parties in the U.S.".

The real rub in Colbert's rejection is that he was polling higher than some Democrats (according to one brief clip Colbert played on his show last night). Perhaps the Democratic Party wanted to be the group that shut those Democratic Party candidates out, not let some citizen show them up and point out how managed American elections really are.

"It's not weird at all. The reason no has "realised" it yet is because the number of people who actually want to kill hundreds in an airplane, or an airport or anywhere else, is diminishingly small."

And moreso, belong to an organization the Americans invented.

It'll take you three hours but I very strongly suggest you watch this BBC documentary on archive.org that points out Al Queda does'nt even exist until it was made up by the Americans:

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

if commercial sets are too tame, there's always the internets (note archive.org link)

buy chemicals here (...while you can -- the feds are actively working to shut this guy down)

btw, chemistry sets were lame even 30 years ago. the chemicals they came with were things like alum, lime, aspirin, melting salt

and a link to click on if you fear your government more than terrorism (vote in the PRIMARY dammit -- before the repub. machine grinds up Paul and spits him out; like the dem. machine did to howard dean)

If you're an admin, then yes. Otherwise, you're at the whim of the Internet Archive. http://web.archive.org/web/20061005024933/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_expletives

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

The sad fact that most of our culture is owned is reason to fight, not to capitulate.

But more importantly, she has a child! ... So this copyrighted song is being used for a commercial application.

I know you did not mean it that way, but you are right. The child is the point of the video. Absolutely none of the mom's target audience is going to watch her video to hear Prince one more time, they are watching her baby and the moment could have been captured with any music. It is too bad that free music is not played over the radio and that the mom did not have a library of that instead of Prince.

Others have pointed out that the RIAA is happy to squash "non-commercial" websites. Google is about the only site that's brave enough and rich enough to fight the MAFIAA in cases like this.

As, for instance, given by the Massachusetts Bay Colony Institute of Technologickal Arts

FOUND IT!

One of the companies that used our stuff back then was Felissimo. Here's a URL for a file that was produced by my software.

http://web.archive.org/web/19980514092506/http:/felissimo.com/html/gifts60.htm

If you read the HTML comments, you can see that it had to figure out that the path was "/html/gifts60r.phtml", and it concluded from that that the product ID it was looking for was "gifts60r". It did a search on that and then came up with a bunch of items that fit that category.

If you follow the link for the first one, you can see that the product detail page also derives the product ID from the URL directly, and renders content based on searches given that.

Now... what do I do with this info?

what sort of site would Slashdot be if not for the sensationalist headlines and trumped up accusations?

Something like this

Well, Slashdot is historically a Linux/OSS-oriented website. Just look at some of the old snapshots of Slashdot frontpage - try the "Jan 25, 1999" one for example. The frequency of Linux stories on Slashdot nowadays is nothing.

The Wayback Machine says php.net has been doing this since at least 2002 (that's when the documentation for it first appeared):
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.php.net/urlhowto.php

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://php.net/fopen

If you read the NYTIMES article on this which has been cited twice prior to this post and on the paper NYTIMES front page above the fold, you will be reassured.

The Open Content Alliance plans to digitize expired copyrights of 1922 and before. Then Boston Library Consortium (34 million expired copyright books) is seeking to digitize later dated in-copyright but out of print books.

Google's approach for in-copyright is close to that of various on-line Journals. A reader can only read a few pages of a copyrighted book (no more information from the article). Then I suppose they are motivated to make an inter library loan for the book.

Then the text, at least from the Gutenberg Project is interesting. Plain courier text for which programs can be written, by myself perhaps, to recreate the original format in PDF files. See the following example.
http://www.archive.org/stream/amusementsinmath16713gut/16713-8.txt

Thanks,
Jim

Slashdot-free since Leap Day 2000

Welcome to the home of the Quit Slashdot movement. (Well, it's a small movement.) Anyway, here's my humble list of materials to help you quit Slashdot:

• Top Nine Reasons to Quit Slashdot

• Alternatives to reading Slashdot

• Sites just as bad as Slashdot

• The "Quit Slashdot Today!" web page button

• Frequently asked questions

Update 14 April 2004

• Let us all take a moment to ponder the meaning of "Jew", and perhaps peruse the Jew FAQ. It's for a good cause, after all.
• Rereading this page today made me realize that my offhand comment about the Santa Cruz Operation in Reason #9 was weirdly prescient. Note that this remark dates at least to Nov. 1 2000, from the very first version of this page that archive.org possesses (Actually I'm pretty sure I made this page in Feb. 2000, but archive.org didn't spider it till later.)

Update 28 Oct 2001:

• 3000+ hits this week due to BBSpot.com listing.
• As several visitors noticed, We're Number 1.

Update 20 May 2001: 14,000+ hits last week, due to memepool and the inevitable fan-out effect. Notes:

• Thanks to all who wrote with positive comments (surprisingly, not one flame!). Unfortunately I'm really busy with end-of-quarter work right now (hey, work is the whole reason I quit Slashdot), so I can't reply/link to everyone. But, best wishes, and I hope quitting Slashdot brings the same benefits to your life that it has to mine.
• Weblogs reveal that this page has been submitted to Slashdot several times. Please do not do this. I have no desire to get a firestorm of screeching Slashdotter mail in my inbox. I have real work to do.
• Does anyone else suspect that the death of Eazel may have been partly due to employees reading Slashdot instead of coding? Save open source now! Quit Slashdot today!

Update 15 May 2001: Moving up! This page is now number 4 on Google searches for the phrase "Jon Katz idiot". Additionally, memepool.com has decided to link here as a public service. Welcome memepool readers! Pro-/. flames will be piped to /dev/null. Also, please note this e-mail, edited to deter spam-bots; (hey, they've got a sense o

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

The trouble is, you know nothing about this supposed god, so like as not, "you're doing it wrong, you'll have your arms pulled off and burn in a lake of fire for all eternity," anyway.

If I die and appear before a god and he asks why I didn't believe, I'd say, "Cause I couldn't believe that if there were a god that he'd be such a fucking asshole!"

http://web.archive.org/web/20060426175941/http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~maronj/text/roach.html