Slashdot Mirror

Open source projects may want to build on open content otherwise this type of problem could come up repeatedly.

Jared Benedict of the Libre Map Project and over 100 map "liberators" have started this collection:

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

a start-- lets build on it.

-brewster
Internet Archive

Sure it does

I was going to go take pictures of it myself (I drink one of those pouches a day, almost), but it's easier to find it on the internets

This is exactly what it looks like, I have 2 of those bags downstairs (and a few empty ones I haven't taken out of the fridge yet)

The little thing on the bag is to cut open the milk, most pitchers have little holes specially made to fit the little clip on top

I also found this image. Tee hee. (Again, that's exactly as you find it in stores today). I think this is what others refer to as 'full cream' milk (not skim/1|2%/low fat)

There's a bit of a tribute site here but it's pretty old (based on what the bag of milk looks like).. The person also really sucks at cutting the hole, it usually comes out much nicer if you do it right

P.S. I believe British Columbia may use the jugs, Ontario uses the bags (which is why I was bothered by California's milk, which comes in jugs, I'm used to the bags)

P.P.S. In Australia, the norm is 'full cream' milk, and 2% (which is the norm here in Ontario) is not too normal there, another difference in milk I've experienced in the world

I started doing this a few years ago. Check out the link below and view source. I got the data from over a year however it is a few years old. I was studying which engines could be abused in the 'best way'. Short answer, all of them.... http://web.archive.org/web/20030426184220/http://w ww.cgisecurity.com/

Another one of his scams was "Make Patrick McFarland Rich", a website that now seems to be down. He claimed that this was either a parody, psychology experiment, or that he was going to use the money to do "something awesome". It's not clear which.

I seriously ask people to ignore this idiot. He isn't a big or important Open Source contributor. If anything he's a self-important con artist. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

The page ain't loadin' for me, and it's not in cache yet. Is Stevie "Kill Creek" Case on the list?

Good stuff gets reproduced, reviewed, studied, dissected, etc. and survives.

the filing date was "February 25, 2000". How many of those were around circa 2000? Skype only began around 2002-2003

I helped port one from win3.1 to win95 in 1996... It worked over the LAN and Internet... It looked like a phone... It supported GSM encoding, and full-duplex audio if your sound card was good enough. The company name was 'Telit', and does not exist anymore.

From archive.org:

• 1996
• 1997
• The feature list

I helped port one from win3.1 to win95 in 1996... It worked over the LAN and Internet... It looked like a phone... It supported GSM encoding, and full-duplex audio if your sound card was good enough. The company name was 'Telit', and does not exist anymore.

From archive.org:

• 1996
• 1997
• The feature list

I helped port one from win3.1 to win95 in 1996... It worked over the LAN and Internet... It looked like a phone... It supported GSM encoding, and full-duplex audio if your sound card was good enough. The company name was 'Telit', and does not exist anymore.

From archive.org:

• 1996
• 1997
• The feature list

Wasn't that Net2Phone?

Here is the companys timeline. http://web.net2phone.com/about/company/timeline.as p

And here is the archive of their website from february 1997 http://web.archive.org/web/19970205073734/http://w ww.net2phone.com/

>If you replace them on a schedule, you're still not guaranteed 100% reliability because a drive can fail way before MTBF...

It is a common misperception that MTBF ratings mean anything about how long an individual device is supposed to last. It's only a measure across a large number of units in total power-on hours, and only within the expected "useful life."

For example, consider a hard drive that has an MTBF of 100,000 hours (11 years), and a 5-year intended useful life. If you have 1,000 of these drives, you can expect, on average, one to fail every 100 hours within the first five years. After that, all bets are off.

So not only does a 100,000 hour MTBF not mean you'll get 11 years, you're lucky (or, more precisely, not unlucky) if you get 5 years.

As many others have said, if you intend to keep it, back it up. Every drive is only guaranteed to work until it fails.

IBM once described it this way:

http://web.archive.org/web/20001202154100/http://w ww.storage.ibm.com/storage/oem/tech/mtbf.htm

I must cop to a typo in my post... it's not "bifield-browning" effect, but biefeld-brown effect. Archaic terminology calls such vehicles, Ionocrafts. Granted, the idea has been around for a while, but it is stalled and isn't developing much further. (new materials, insulators, conductors, EM freq's, etc. --even NASA admits that there's something strange about it.)

They found a much-better use for tinfoil, anyway.

I know, I know. Flame me. But I found Heritrix http://crawler.archive.org/ is a very polished package. Used it for my Masters research, and found that it is very extensible. Useful if you are doing real crawling, ie not concentrating on one site.

How about this side: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Buckethead

... but.. credit WAS his. Al Gore was the first or surely among the first of the members of Congress to become a strong supporter of advanced networking while he served as Senator. As far back as 1986, he was holding hearings on this subject (supercomputing, fiber networks...) and asking about their promise and what could be done to realize them. It was clear that as a Senator and as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it.

Al Gore has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported its continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful. As Vice President, he has been very responsive to recommendations made, for example, by the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee that endorsed additional research funding for next generation fundamental research in software and related topics.

We're fortunate to have leaders like Al Gore who embrace new technology and have the vision to see how it can be put to work for national and global benefit.

In my opinion to not acknowledge the great benefits and give credit for intelligent leadership shown by polititions like Al Gore, leads to poor choices and bad decisions being played out for decades to come.

Give the man his due, thank him for pushing intelligent policy.

Quotes taken from http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://w ww.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html with modifications.

The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00 218.html.

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.

Mere "one inventor" does not have the legal standing within the company to make that statement, much less the grant. Can you come up with something official and legally binding, instead of a mailing list post by meaningless Mr. Nobody?

They're the ones who abbreviate Microsoft as M$, call Windows "Windoze", and generally do other things that give Linux a bad name.

Stay off of the IRC channels

The Wayback machine has the CNN article: http://web.archive.org/web/20050723234454/http://w ww.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/22/smog.scrubbing.surface. ap/index.html (warning: popups that Firefox 2 doesn't catch).

At least one of these documents was previously available from the US Department of Justices website but now we get:
>>>>"We are sorry, but we are unable to locate the page you requested on the Department of Justice Website."

The Wayback machine shows they had it as late as Dec 2005

Here it is folks, one of the very documents that can get you jailed, was published on the US DOJ website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051213085938/http://w ww.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Full history here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.usdoj.gov/ ag/trainingmanual.htm

At least one of these documents was previously available from the US Department of Justices website but now we get:
>>>>"We are sorry, but we are unable to locate the page you requested on the Department of Justice Website."

The Wayback machine shows they had it as late as Dec 2005

Here it is folks, one of the very documents that can get you jailed, was published on the US DOJ website:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051213085938/http://w ww.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

Full history here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.usdoj.gov/ ag/trainingmanual.htm

Could patents be used to completely disable Mono?

First some background information.

The .NET Framework is divided in two parts: the ECMA/ISO covered technologies and the other technologies developed on top of it like ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms.

Mono implements the ECMA/ISO covered parts, as well as being a project that aims to implement the higher level blocks like ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms.

The Mono project has gone beyond both of those components and has developed and integrated third party class libraries, the most important being: Debugging APIs, integration with the Gnome platform (Accessibility, Pango rendering, Gdk/Gtk, Glade, GnomeUI), Mozilla, OpenGL, extensive database support (Microsoft only supports a couple of providers out of the box, while Mono has support for 11 different providers), our POSIX integration libraries and finally the embedded API (used to add scripting to applications and host the CLI, or for example as an embedded runtime in Apache).

The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission. Jim Miller at Microsoft has made a statement on the patents covering ISO/ECMA, (he is one of the inventors listed in the patent): http://web.archive.org/web/20030609164123/http://m ailserver.di.unipi.it/pipermail/dotnet-sscli/msg00 218.html.

Basically a grant is given to anyone who want to implement those components for free and for any purpose.

The controversial elements are the ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows.Forms subsets. Those are convenient for people who need full compatibility with the Windows platform, but are not required for the open source Mono platform, nor integration with today's Mono's rich support of Linux.

The Mono strategy for dealing with these technologies is as follows: (1) work around the patent by using a different implementation technique that retains the API, but changes the mechanism; if that is not possible, we would (2) remove the pieces of code that were covered by those patents, and also (3) find prior art that would render the patent useless.

Not providing a patented capability would weaken the interoperability, but it would still provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono.

The patents do not apply in countries where software patents are not allowed.

For Linux server and desktop development, we only need the ECMA components, and things that we have developed (like Gtk#) or Apache integration.

With the new Novell/Microsoft agreement, will the patent policy change?

Mono is a community project, and as such, we will continue to implement the policy of not integrating knowingly infringing code into Mono.

And we will continue to follow the steps outlined in the previous topic if code that potentially infringes is found: finding prior art, finding different implementation techniques, or if none of those are possible, removing the code from Mono.

Here are some good man beef recipes for our new flesh eating overlords! http://web.archive.org/web/20010411085114/www.manb eef.com/bbq.html

Way to refute my points. I bow to your master debating skills.

BTW these numbers are from SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

But of course, if you were interested in finding the truth of the matter you would know that since it's either the first or linked to by the first entry in almost every Google search on the subject.

Why don't you just give them a call at 804-358-0560?

And a bona fide web site as early as 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20001201190500/http://w ww.utube.com/

The last page in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine for utube.com, March 8, 2005, doesn't refer to the company as utube anywhere; if they refer to themselves in a shortened form at all (from what I read) they called themselves "Universal". I hope that the courts prove that Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment is just trying to make a quick buck and the company loses out on lots of legal fees.

It looked like this in October 1996

http://web.archive.org/web/19961017235908/http://w ww2.yahoo.com/

Apologies for the grida.no links, they seem to be down at the moment which is odd. You can find the attribution chapter here on archive.org, and the mitigation report here. If you actually bother to read through both of those (and I'll be honest, that's a lot of reading), you'll find it adds a lot more than "one new datum". The attribution chapter alone is a summary of 13 different studies, using diverse techniques such as pattern correlation, time series methods, optimal fingerpring methods, and others to attribute observed warming to a very diverse range of potential causes both natural and anthropogenic.

As to the realclimate links, you can ad-hominem the site all you like, but the links are to a plot with no related text, so try arguing the issue presented. The end result is that current climate models do a remarkably good job of modelling climate, contrary to what to OP had to say. If you want lots of data then try reading through the model evaluation chapter of the IPCC TAR which should give you a great deal of detailed data on the accuracy of climate models circa 2001 (and of course models have continued to improve, now providing some accuracy on regional scales).

Then there's the fact that the more recent Holocene temperature reconstruction demonstrates that the graphs cited by the OP are not actually particularly accurate - we are in a largely stable period during an interglacial, except that current global average temperatures are anomolously spiking.

Finally it's worth noting that the OP didn't actually provide much in the way of "facts", but rather some bold assertions, several of which are demonstrably false, such as claims of 95% of greenhouse warming being from water vapour, and claims of climate model innaccuracy, as well as the claim that "nothing can be done". His thesis rests on the claim that "we don't know everything" and therefore shouldn't do anything, but that's just not the case - we understand a great deal about how the climate works, we have models that can reproduce global climates surprisingly accurately, and we have a great deal of detailed evidence to stringly support the hypothesis that the observed warming is anthropogenic (Equally importantly, there is no current theory that can adequately explain the current observed warming any other way). The best information we have, and there is a fair amount of it, suggests that global warming is real, has a signifiant anthropogenic component to its cause, and that human actions toward mitigation can, indeed, have a significant impact on future warming. No, we don't know everything, but we're a long way from just guessing.

Apologies for the grida.no links, they seem to be down at the moment which is odd. You can find the attribution chapter here on archive.org, and the mitigation report here. If you actually bother to read through both of those (and I'll be honest, that's a lot of reading), you'll find it adds a lot more than "one new datum". The attribution chapter alone is a summary of 13 different studies, using diverse techniques such as pattern correlation, time series methods, optimal fingerpring methods, and others to attribute observed warming to a very diverse range of potential causes both natural and anthropogenic.

As to the realclimate links, you can ad-hominem the site all you like, but the links are to a plot with no related text, so try arguing the issue presented. The end result is that current climate models do a remarkably good job of modelling climate, contrary to what to OP had to say. If you want lots of data then try reading through the model evaluation chapter of the IPCC TAR which should give you a great deal of detailed data on the accuracy of climate models circa 2001 (and of course models have continued to improve, now providing some accuracy on regional scales).

Then there's the fact that the more recent Holocene temperature reconstruction demonstrates that the graphs cited by the OP are not actually particularly accurate - we are in a largely stable period during an interglacial, except that current global average temperatures are anomolously spiking.

Finally it's worth noting that the OP didn't actually provide much in the way of "facts", but rather some bold assertions, several of which are demonstrably false, such as claims of 95% of greenhouse warming being from water vapour, and claims of climate model innaccuracy, as well as the claim that "nothing can be done". His thesis rests on the claim that "we don't know everything" and therefore shouldn't do anything, but that's just not the case - we understand a great deal about how the climate works, we have models that can reproduce global climates surprisingly accurately, and we have a great deal of detailed evidence to stringly support the hypothesis that the observed warming is anthropogenic (Equally importantly, there is no current theory that can adequately explain the current observed warming any other way). The best information we have, and there is a fair amount of it, suggests that global warming is real, has a signifiant anthropogenic component to its cause, and that human actions toward mitigation can, indeed, have a significant impact on future warming. No, we don't know everything, but we're a long way from just guessing.

Apologies for the grida.no links, they seem to be down at the moment which is odd. You can find the attribution chapter here on archive.org, and the mitigation report here. If you actually bother to read through both of those (and I'll be honest, that's a lot of reading), you'll find it adds a lot more than "one new datum". The attribution chapter alone is a summary of 13 different studies, using diverse techniques such as pattern correlation, time series methods, optimal fingerpring methods, and others to attribute observed warming to a very diverse range of potential causes both natural and anthropogenic.

As to the realclimate links, you can ad-hominem the site all you like, but the links are to a plot with no related text, so try arguing the issue presented. The end result is that current climate models do a remarkably good job of modelling climate, contrary to what to OP had to say. If you want lots of data then try reading through the model evaluation chapter of the IPCC TAR which should give you a great deal of detailed data on the accuracy of climate models circa 2001 (and of course models have continued to improve, now providing some accuracy on regional scales).

Then there's the fact that the more recent Holocene temperature reconstruction demonstrates that the graphs cited by the OP are not actually particularly accurate - we are in a largely stable period during an interglacial, except that current global average temperatures are anomolously spiking.

Finally it's worth noting that the OP didn't actually provide much in the way of "facts", but rather some bold assertions, several of which are demonstrably false, such as claims of 95% of greenhouse warming being from water vapour, and claims of climate model innaccuracy, as well as the claim that "nothing can be done". His thesis rests on the claim that "we don't know everything" and therefore shouldn't do anything, but that's just not the case - we understand a great deal about how the climate works, we have models that can reproduce global climates surprisingly accurately, and we have a great deal of detailed evidence to stringly support the hypothesis that the observed warming is anthropogenic (Equally importantly, there is no current theory that can adequately explain the current observed warming any other way). The best information we have, and there is a fair amount of it, suggests that global warming is real, has a signifiant anthropogenic component to its cause, and that human actions toward mitigation can, indeed, have a significant impact on future warming. No, we don't know everything, but we're a long way from just guessing.

This is the one I remember There weren't many sites like that 10 years ago and I spent 2-3 hours in the belief it was all some puzzle to be cracked. Much more creative than the tacky commercial marketing bullshit that followed (matrix etc).

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://hell.com

Here is an even better Open Source Gaming System

Jim was editor of Privacilla.org (now defunct, see wayback:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306022005/http://w ww.privacilla.org/index.html )

It was "a web-based think tank that takes a free-market, pro-technology approach to privacy policy."

He's also author of "Identity Crisis: How Identification is Overused and Misunderstood"
Search inside it at Amazon.

Also, google is your friend... lots of stuff. Not sure exactly what you are looking for.

Yes, I hate too see anybody have to deal with illness and glad to see he is getting better.

Maybe out of gratefulness he won't continue to shill for these guys.

Fluendo now offers a free MP3 plugin for GStreamer that has the necessary patent license for end users.

They mean gratis, not that this plugin necessarily gives you the freedoms of free software (for those of you who live in countries saddled with software patents). You could install and run this plugin but doing so would be installing non-free software on your machine. For the rest of you, the Fluendo GStreamer MP3 plugin is free software, licensed under the MIT X11 license. Richard Stallman, founder of the free software movement, talked about this during the first GPLv3 conference when discussing what was then known as the "Liberty or Death" clause of the upcoming GPL. The GPL strives to not only create software freedom (the freedom to share and modify computer programs) but defend it in the face of new threats like software patents (patents on algorithms used in computer software):

The need for this provision was underlined by a recent article talking about a GStreamer plugin which includes source code distributed under an X11 license, or so it says. But then when you read further you see, in fact, that that's not the whole of the license; there's a patent license involved also, and that, in fact, it's not free software at all! And this was presented as a way of making things better for our community. So you believe that a non-free program can make things better for people, that it's a step forward, as the author of the article I read did, then you might think what they did was great. But if your goal is to make sure--is to defend user's freedom, to establish a community of freedom, to spread the idea that freedom is important, than you cannot accept the idea that such a thing is a positive step. It's a surrender, not an amelioration. And so the "Liberty or Death" article of the GPL is just as important as it ever was.

I discussed this some more at the time on my blog.

Some of what you write is debatable, but some isn't.

The original patent license terms were not unusual or unreasonable. It was just that a number of persons decided to make an objection in this case to a practice that nobody had objected to for over a decade.

Saying that is ignoring the facts. Both the ASF and the Debian project classified the Microsoft's license for their patent as inherently incompatible with free software. And patents on e-mail standards, unlike patents on many other IT technologies, are a very particular problem because a very large (if not the larger) part of the e-mail server world runs on free software. Go read the ASF's and Debian's explanations, they certainly did do their homework.

Sender-ID is not incompatible with SPF as alleged. The only difference is at the recipient side and the recipient cannot be forced to interpret SPF or Sender-ID in any particular way.

(To be explicit about my motives: I am the one who appealed to the IESG/IAB on behalf of the SPF project about the reuse of "v=spf1" records for the PRA algorithm in the Sender ID specification.)

You correctly point out that a communication standard is little more than a silent agreement between senders and receivers that only works if the receiving party tries their best not to misinterpret what the sending party meant. But then you simply quit the subject, assuming that communication standards will work even with everyone interpreting stuff their way, because, after all, there is no protocol police, thank you. Sorry, but "compatible" means something else to me.

We had agreement in the WG to proceed on a common spec and nobody found any problems until the patent issue was raised.

Again you are missing the facts. Quoting from my appeal to the IESG:

It is also worth noting that at the time the MARID WG was closed [in September 2004], the then-current Sender ID specification draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 did not include the re-use of "v=spf1" records for PRA checking. This was only introduced in [Microsoft's] individual submission draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 in October 2004. Also did Microsoft's record generation wizards generate only "v=spf2.0/pra" records until the end of October, when they began generating only "v=spf1" records.

Read the appeal. It connects a lot of dots that many do not like to remember.

Some of what you write is debatable, but some isn't.

The original patent license terms were not unusual or unreasonable. It was just that a number of persons decided to make an objection in this case to a practice that nobody had objected to for over a decade.

Saying that is ignoring the facts. Both the ASF and the Debian project classified the Microsoft's license for their patent as inherently incompatible with free software. And patents on e-mail standards, unlike patents on many other IT technologies, are a very particular problem because a very large (if not the larger) part of the e-mail server world runs on free software. Go read the ASF's and Debian's explanations, they certainly did do their homework.

Sender-ID is not incompatible with SPF as alleged. The only difference is at the recipient side and the recipient cannot be forced to interpret SPF or Sender-ID in any particular way.

(To be explicit about my motives: I am the one who appealed to the IESG/IAB on behalf of the SPF project about the reuse of "v=spf1" records for the PRA algorithm in the Sender ID specification.)

You correctly point out that a communication standard is little more than a silent agreement between senders and receivers that only works if the receiving party tries their best not to misinterpret what the sending party meant. But then you simply quit the subject, assuming that communication standards will work even with everyone interpreting stuff their way, because, after all, there is no protocol police, thank you. Sorry, but "compatible" means something else to me.

We had agreement in the WG to proceed on a common spec and nobody found any problems until the patent issue was raised.

Again you are missing the facts. Quoting from my appeal to the IESG:

It is also worth noting that at the time the MARID WG was closed [in September 2004], the then-current Sender ID specification draft-ietf-marid-protocol-03 did not include the re-use of "v=spf1" records for PRA checking. This was only introduced in [Microsoft's] individual submission draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 in October 2004. Also did Microsoft's record generation wizards generate only "v=spf2.0/pra" records until the end of October, when they began generating only "v=spf1" records.

Read the appeal. It connects a lot of dots that many do not like to remember.

While Wales is talking about this, the Internet Archive is quietly doing it and has been for several years now. There's a sizable book scanning effort underway, in cooperation with various libraries and Yahoo. Automatic book scanning equipment has been developed and is in use. The images of the pages are stored, and the text extracted with OCR for searching and other uses. They have over 33,000 books on line now.

Loading existing works into a wiki system isn't particularly useful, anyway. Making them editable probably won't make them better.

Boy Scouting?

This shows Foley as a Scoutmaster. This isn't available on the current "Fact Sheet" because unaccountably, it was purged of Foley's name right after Foley became notorious for his interest in children. Surely a coincidence.

I'm not sure that a youth organization that on a single campout, loses 4 dead to adult carelessness and 300 heat-related injuries in the course of having kids wait for President Bush to make a political appearance really is a place where any responsible adult would want to put a kid. The carelessness was setting up a giant tent with a metal pole right under high-tension power lines. You want to trust people like that with kids?

Throw in the RIAA Merit Badge and. . . we have an organization that deserves no public support of any sort. They served a useful purpose in the past, too bad they seem as an organization to have forgotten what it was.

http://www.archive.org/details/isforAto1953/

The film asserts that politicians consequently sought a new role that would restore their power and authority. Writer Adam Curtis, who also narrates the series, declares in the film's introduction that "Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares".

One fact TFA and the Slashdot title both got wrong, is Alexa wasn't Amazon's idea. Until Amazon bought it in 1999, Alexa was the commercial offshoot of archive.org for three years. Alexa is still what gives the Wayback Machine its web crawls.

What if there's been a lot of traffic in "Santa Claus versus the Martians", and it's pretty constant - maybe rereleasing the DVD will make some cash.

If you're referring to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, it's in the public domain now. So anyone can rerelease it on DVD.

The problem is that Firefox and other non-IE browsers are just trying to support the W3C standards and what web publishers write for their sites. Someone could certainly create a slimmed down version of Firefox that didn't have any bells or whistles, but would you continue to use it if some sites starting displaying incorrectly?

Firefox is gaining acceptance because it's more secure, generally faster, and provides far better support for the newer W3C standards such as CSS2. If you're looking for a small footprint blazing fast load times, try Cello, which can be downloaded from here. Sure, it's from 1994, but it'll run on a 386sx and you can fit 4 copies of it on a floppy. =)

They're one step away from admitting filesharers buy more music.

I rarely buy any music and I'm a huge filesharer but I also don't pirate any music. I listen to music that is free to distribute. There are plenty of bands out there to listen to that are free and open about their live stuff.

Live music not only showcases how the music *really* is (not overprocessed and mass marketed) but depending on the recording (mixed AUD/SBD and full blown AUD) gives you a sense of crowd response.

Support those bands and not the fucking trash that the RIAA panders. Fuck illegal P2P and check out http://www.dimeadozen.org/ or http://archive.org./

--Pat

--Pat

I don't think he was the internet archive. http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php