Slashdot Mirror

Archives are good and this can be a useful service. Providing 80 select gigs on a hard drive to libraries and schools is a useful until US networks get where they should be. Their software can keep those 80 GB up to snuff at night. When you leave the cache, you ... gasp ... get the new content. In the mean time, things are much faster when it matters. Mirrored content will always be a good idea. Look at the debian distribution system, for example.

Good luck to the people at Webaroo. So long as they don't apply for stupid patents that give them an exclusive franchise to distribution systems, they are AOK.

The road warrior thing will flop, though. People are going to stay where there's a network or pay the $10. It's the one piece of live information that requires the hook up. The speed of the rest is gravy for those people.

Archives are good and this can be a useful service. Providing 80 select gigs on a hard drive to libraries and schools is a useful until US networks get where they should be. Their software can keep those 80 GB up to snuff at night. When you leave the cache, you ... gasp ... get the new content. In the mean time, things are much faster when it matters. Mirrored content will always be a good idea. Look at the debian distribution system, for example.

Good luck to the people at Webaroo. So long as they don't apply for stupid patents that give them an exclusive franchise to distribution systems, they are AOK.

The road warrior thing will flop, though. People are going to stay where there's a network or pay the $10. It's the one piece of live information that requires the hook up. The speed of the rest is gravy for those people.

"The Internet Archive Wayback Machine contains approximately 1 petabyte of data and is currently growing at a rate of 20 terabytes per month. This eclipses the amount of text contained in the world's largest libraries, including the Library of Congress. If you tried to place the entire contents of the archive onto floppy disks (we don't recommend this!) and laid them end to end, it would stretch from New York, past Los Angeles, and halfway to Hawaii."

Internet Archive Frequently Asked Questions

Science: Big-O analysis, graph theory, computability evaluation
Not Science: Distributed systems design, system architecture

Tell that to this guy getting his PhD in it; his distributed project FeedTree has been previously featured on Slashdot.

Something doesn't stop being science just because you say so. Have you forgotten Google's roots?

Looks like it's a new word from 2000 : http://searchwebservices.techtarget.com/sDefinitio n/0,,sid26_gci342237,00.html

Or at least 2002 : http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://searchwebservi ces.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid26_gci342237, 00.html

Mudders did it first!

http://web.archive.org/web/20010920072708/http://w ww-bcs.mit.edu/~somers/cannon.html

On an MIT webpage, strangely enough.

HMC '02

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

I've seen a single 2.0GHz duo core processor (T2500) benchmark like a 1.8GHz Sempron (aka 3000+).
Tie score: Not bad for a mobile processor, and not bad for a value desktop chip with just 128K L2 cache.

That was operating off the old premise that good "laptop" processing lags behind adequate desktop useage.

In any case, it's going to be a while before I switch back to Intel. AMD has won me over for the time being.

Not me. The dirty little AMD secret we all know is the current outrageous pricing. Proof is documented:

http://web.archive.org/web/20020603180418/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP (May 2002)
2000+ $193
1900+ $172
1800+ $160
1700+ $140
http://web.archive.org/web/20030602013858/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) XP Processor (May 2003)
2600+ $103
2500+ $89
2400+ $84
2200+ $74
http://web.archive.org/web/20040611152643/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (June 2004)
3200+ $278
3000+ $218
2800+ $178
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319092914/www.amd. com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_609 ,00.html

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2005)
3700+ $329
3500+ $272
3400+ $223
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 (March 2006)
4000+ $341
3800+ $288
3700+ $238
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoo m/0,,51_104_609,00.html?redir=CPPR01

AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 (current)
4800+ $643
4600+ $556
4400+ $467
4200+ $362

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-870805.html

Stangely enough http://www.wehavethewayout.com/ has disappeared

Some waybacks

http://web.archive.org/web/20040815070955/www.weha vethewayout.com/us/index.asp

The difference between the June 2004 version

http://web.archive.org/web/20040619041226/http://w ww.wehavethewayout.com/us/resourcecenter.asp

And the May 2003 version

http://web.archive.org/web/20030501180724/http://w ww.wehavethewayout.com/us/resourcecenter.asp

of the report is interestingly different

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-870805.html

Stangely enough http://www.wehavethewayout.com/ has disappeared

Some waybacks

http://web.archive.org/web/20040815070955/www.weha vethewayout.com/us/index.asp

The difference between the June 2004 version

http://web.archive.org/web/20040619041226/http://w ww.wehavethewayout.com/us/resourcecenter.asp

And the May 2003 version

http://web.archive.org/web/20030501180724/http://w ww.wehavethewayout.com/us/resourcecenter.asp

of the report is interestingly different

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-870805.html

Stangely enough http://www.wehavethewayout.com/ has disappeared

Some waybacks

http://web.archive.org/web/20040815070955/www.weha vethewayout.com/us/index.asp

The difference between the June 2004 version

http://web.archive.org/web/20040619041226/http://w ww.wehavethewayout.com/us/resourcecenter.asp

And the May 2003 version

http://web.archive.org/web/20030501180724/http://w ww.wehavethewayout.com/us/resourcecenter.asp

of the report is interestingly different

Hereare a few suggestions regarding what you can do if you don't want to support the RIAA:
1- Use the tools at RIAA Radar: http://www.magnetbox.com/riaa/ to avoid buying RIAA artists' work.
2- Borrow music from your local library (they often have a surprisingly good, though not up-to-date, collection).
3- Buy your music at concerts, where the artist gets most of the money instead of a handful of RIAA executives and all the pointless middlemen.
4- Put in the extra work to find free music on the Net in the form of free downloads and Creative Commons licensed tracks. (Music blogs and the Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/details/audio) are good sources.

Slashcode prevents me from putting that link in an HREF : anyway http://web.archive.org/web/20000818081805/http://w ww.microsoft.com/OEM/nakedPC.htm

They've been saying exactly this since http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/nakedPC.htm">at least 2000 (Courtesy of the wayback machine).

His staff (namely a bunch of Neo-Convervatives - including Rumsfeld) has sought to reclaim power after being marginalized in the public mind for a while. We know they invented a terrorist attack (9/11), and used that to engage in a war where the whole point of the war has yet to be found despite a 3 year occupation. The president has blocked scientific research and even debate on any matter that he objects to.

It is good to see that America has begun to remarginalize the government despite the attempts for the government to create panic. The only sad part is that we are not demanded that the past transgressions be repaired. In this situation, no one wins. The american people must hold their government accountable.

For more information, see Power of Nightmares (Try the free, open source VLC player if you media player won't play)

Apple Computer paid Rob Janoff to create the Apple logo. There just happened to be a record company who had chosen to name their computer after a common fruit, who just happened to be founded eight years before(in 1968), and who doesn't seem to do anything anymore except sue Apple Computer.

When Apple Computer was founded in 1976, the two companies didn't do anything that would cause them to be confused, so after Apple Corps' 1978 lawsuit was settled in 1981, Apple Computer was allowed to use the trademark "Apple", as long as they didn't sell music media. As of now, they still don't.

Apple Corps' website has been a placeholder page since at least 1999. If it weren't for the potential lawsuit that the idea of "Intellectual Property" gives them, I doubt that anyone would even remember "Apple Corps".

The RIAA is over. Apple makes it easy for people to spend their money on music but the RIAA way is not the future. Sales are only a small piece of the picture. More and more, reputations are not going to be built on radio play but on web play. Bands that understand this are going to be here tomorrow and the rest are going to look like slaves to greedy pigs. Portable music devices can hold more songs than the average radio station can afford to broadcast. To the user, it's all killer and no annoying adverts. The "Industry" is fighting back with satellite radio and FM crap flooding but it's not good enough. Players like Apple are going to help transition the industry to it's less centralized and less parasitic future. The free market forces and free software will move in and make life better for everyone, especially the artists.

But, the vast majority of people don't have distribution rights for any of the music on their iPods.

You know - you don't have to be an audio engineer to get more then enough freely redistributable music to fill your iPod many times over.

If Apple were more interested in helping their customers, and less interested in helping RIAA / etc out, archive.org (at least) would be prominently featured in itunes.

As things stand they're not interested in promoting any msuic they can't make a few dollars on (even where it would not cost them anything and benefit their customers).

I believe there used to be a version of IE for Unix when I was at university

A version of IE 5 was available for HP-UX and Solaris. (Not SCO Unix, not AIX, and certainly not Linux or BSD!) I don't know whether it was closer to the Windows or Mac version, but if I were to guess, I'd say Windows.

It was discontinued in 2002.

Ok, where do I go to buy a majority share in a Chinese company?

Oh wait, I can't.

...and before someone tries to rebut this with the example of the Unocal bid that was shot down, allow me to point out that in China, foreign ownership or controlling interest must abide by a strict set of constraints. Furthermore, foreigners may only invest in a special category of shares. These restrictions hardly comprise a free market.

By comparison, in the United States foreign ownership restrictions are generally only found in transportation, telecommunications, energy, healthcare, and defense industries; outside of those industries it is pretty much completely open. Before we all sing the praises of the U.S. business environment's openness however, allow me to explain why many other nations operate more closed business environments.

The open environment allows companies like Espire Infolabs headquartered in another nation for example, to establish a corporate presence in the U.S. (see their old contact pages showing their now-defunct branches in the U.S.). These can be nothing more than branches that funnel funds back to headquarters. They can also close up, declare bankruptcy, and break contracts, with no recourse to pursue them for making you whole back at the headquarters in the home nation unless you start talking seven to eight figures at stake. Completely legal. I know all this because I'm one of the creditors in their bankruptcy case. Expensive mistakes like these are the cost of doing business in the U.S.

However, nations like China are concerned about these types of outcomes that they consider predatory if they open up their business environment like the U.S. has opened up. If their politicians believe their business culture is not as sophisticated and prone to predation, then they will put in restrictions like we see today. In a more closed environment where only native citizens are allowed to retain controlling interest for example, outcomes like I described generally depend upon the creditors' willingness to get nasty in the court system with those citizens. It is not all doom and gloom if a nation opens up, however. For example, information and communications technology lets me quickly and easily verify that Espire Infolabs doesn't open another presence in the U.S. based upon that brand. If they use that brand in the U.S. again, I'll go after them for the funds they owe, plus interest, plus attorney and court fees. They can open up under a different name and throw away the enormous marketing and sales investment they have made into that brand, of course; I check for that less frequently because I can't automate that. On the balance, even after getting reamed because the environment allows such dynamics, I believe the U.S. is a stronger nation for it. Wasn't a fatal incident for my business, and I'm still around, at least.

The situation will only get better in the future, I believe. Eventually trusted reputation systems will get established, and not just the reputation of a company but of the management individuals at the helm can be tracked. Credit scoring is simply a primitive reputation system, and the demand exists to extend its reach. And the calculus of business etiquette will start to eventually change in favor of better practices.

Actually, I'd say we are going back to the 'less is better' design. The original AltaVista, for example, was very simple and rather Google like.

• http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmare s
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmar es
• http://www.silt3.com/index.php?id=573
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares.

They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a War on Terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits.

At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both 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 of what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organised 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.

Check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20000817083826/http://w ww.c-3d.net/press23.html Constellation 3D's Year 2000 Press Release announcing the availability of their "product" the following year. What happened to them? They got infusion capital investment and then declared bankruptcy with all the founders running away with the money. Classic pump and dump scam.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020321092752/http:/ /www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=1884&a=24242,00.as p

http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s=1884&a=24242 ,00.asp">link

See here for original story of the "delicate dance" vendors are expected to perform.

That's the one thing that really intrigues me about Google's Page Creator: The concept that it is capable of quickly creating simple, ad-hoc, "temporary pages. While you are absolutely correct about the non-availability of many GeoCities and AngelFire pages, if we know that about GooglePages from the start, then GooglePages won't seem like it's fallen into the same realm. GooglePages is a great place to post temporary or short-term pages for things like events, notes, and other stuff that don't require long-term storage. Once you're "done" with the page, just delete it and that's that. Yes, "grandma" can use it too for her "permanent" pages, but I think the real power of Page Creator is its quick-and-dirty approach.

If Google indexes GooglePages just like other sites, (accessible through Google's Web Search) they should then ensure that GooglePages that get deleted are removed from its index (maybe as an optional checkbox during the delete step?) You see, while we all certainly like archived information through the likes of the Way Back Machine and Google's page cache, is that really necessary for much of life's temporary information to permanently hold onto it? If you want long-term storage, then put it into a blog, a Wiki, or a site geared for long-term hosting.

I think the "killer app" aspect of GooglePages is its potential for temporary Web pages.

What do you think?

-Jim
http://gmailtips.com/
http://pagecreatortips.com/
http://googlepagestips.com/

Survey says... XXX

The Wayback Machine isn't working well today, but I was able to see what both of these sites looked like in 2000 versus today. The buttons and tabs were more "hip" looking, the font style had changed slightly, and lord knows there was a lot more content. But the placement of objects on the screen (aka the design of the site) and the function of those objects, remain exactly the way they were 6 years ago.

Check it out for yourself - http://www.archive.org/

On the other hand this is a good thing for the computer science departments of universities, for less students means that they can do less job training and more actual computer science. If you aren't convinced that real progress in computer science isn't being made any more I encourage you to watch this video. In it you can see all the aspects of the modern computers that we know and love being demonstated oh so long ago, only with less polish. Sadly research hasn't proceeded much beyond this in terms of software. The problem is that the typical student in a computer science course doesn't want to learn computer science, they just want to learn some Java/hot language of the momement and get out into the workforce. This is where bad programmers and bugs galore come from. However if those who simply want a job leave then a computer science degree will once again have meaning, and better software will be produced. Trust me on this one, I'm surrounded by CS majors who think Java is the best language ever, and are unable to program in anything else.

oh, come on....
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=s udo&q2=root&B1=Make+a+fight!&compare=1&langue=us
that's the right url. no flash!

taken from here: http://web.archive.org/web/20021112210945/http://w ww.googlefight.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20000815053636/web.icq. com/

If the caches do become illegal what happens to http://www.archive.org/ Surely it would just collapse?

It turns out that this image of the Soviet Union as an uber-powerful country that will invade at any minute now, was in the interests of the neo-cons in power. It is known now that Congressional groups influenced by them, would go through the CIA evidence and re-interpret and mix everything with fantasy to make it sound as if the Russians have reached this unprecedented level of technological achievements and are ready to "push the button" at any minute. The media didn't know, it just regurgitated everything that the government told it to. So the minds and oppinions of ordinary Americans are controlled by this small group of people who have it as their main principle to hold the society in fear so they can control it.

Watch the "Power of Nightmares" movie. It is a British documentary, aired on BBC a while ago and now it is free for download here . It is very educational, it talks about the idiological forces behind the US neo-cons, and Islamic extremism, how it started how both clashed. There is also a Wiki page about the movie, check it out. Just search on Google for it. Warning: it is a 3 hour long thing, but I didn't regret taking that time to see it.

What that means is that there isn't actually an Al Qaeda, an almighty mega organization with thousands of sleeper cells ready to attack at any minute along with a centralized command center in the mountains of Afghanistan somewhere. You believe that or you think you believe that because you have been hearing it and seeing it on US media. Bin Ladin himself, before 9/11 _never_ referred to his organization as Al Qaeda, he addopted the name after the US said that "Al Qaeda is responsible" so he started using "Al Qaeda" since then. He doesn't have thousands of armed men protected him in a bunker somewhere. In one of the videos you see him with many such uniformed soldiers but he allegedly hired them for the day from a local war lord so they can appear on the video. "Al Qaeda" exists but it is actually small extremist groups of muslim men in certain countries that will be willing to kill themselves and civilians to shock and scare the world. Any such group of men is "Al Qaeda" -- they might not even know or have any connection with Bin Ladin's group. Sometimes these men will ask for donations from imams or wealthy arabs, but they don't all get salaries and health plans from Bin-Ladin. Anyway, watch the "Power of Nightmares" movie. It is a British documentary talking about this. It is very well done. You can download it for free . There is also a Wiki page on it, check it out, just search on Google, it will come up.

I like the middle ground of having a range of pre-built binaries that are optimised for common machine types, allowing the user to install the one most appropriate. This allows benefits in performance, as well as reducing the permutations of the software that need supporting.

The Moox builds (http://www.moox.ws/ of Firefox did exactly this, and gave a noticable performance increase over the 'regular' mozilla.com pre-built binaries for Win32. Before the site went down, there were also benchmarks of his builds showing the performance increase - the PDF is still in the Wayback machine linked from the following page: http://web.archive.org/web/20050216043112/http://m oox.ws/tech/mozilla.

Because Google's got a solid reputation with the important half of the equation: making money. Getting money for Advertising is the hard part. Google's automated system nets them a lot of cash, and their reputation brings them enough customers that they automate the process. And it's not like Google isn't busy acquiring and building out new stuff. They rolled out pay per download content in what, less than a year? Their ability to move through internet technologies like a fish moves through water is why they're highly valued. Sure, plenty of people can hack up a flickr clone in five minutes that stands up to testing by their five friends. But making highly available, widely distributed systems involves something more than a couple javascripts. Google's got that part down pat. There aren't that many people out there that are talented in maintaining a cluster of the kind you need to really compete with Google. And you have to recognize, people will always be part of this equation. With hundreds of computers, at least one will fail permentently per day. If you bought quality stuff. If you didn't, oops. Yes, the hardware is being commoditized. But we're a long ways from open source easily maintained cluster computing.

Long term, there's no value in any single investment in an open market. Returns diminish, and profits approach zero. The only way you stay ahead of the curve is to keep investing in newer stuff. Google appears to have a solid group behind them capable of doing exactly that, and doing it well enough, repeatedly. How valuable is a computer from five years ago? Or a car from ten years ago? Or a printing press from 100 years ago? How valuable is an ad campaign from 15 years ago?

BTW, http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://accoona.com gives interesting results.

And finally, fuck Slashdot/-code for being too stupid to handle proper URLs, and just use this (I hope this one will FINALLY work):

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308014526/www.umwe ltjournal.de/fp/archiv/AFA_umweltnatur/8022.php

BTW, replace the above link to that German website with an http://www.umweltjournal.de/fp/archiv/AFA_umweltna tur/8022.php">Internet Archive version. It seems that the video was not saved, though, so you unfortunately won't be able to see it - or fortunately, maybe, depending on one's point of view.

I have a bit of experience on researching this stuff. As a typical rule, we first look at a patent's abstract and then the independent claims and if there is any funky language, we refer to the detailed description to understand any phrases or key words they use for the claim language to better understand context.

On the '176 patent, there's a number of independent claims highlight 'a plurality of markets', but #16 is interesting. Claim 16 is:
16. A computer-implemented method of searching for an item in a plurality of independently operated electronic auctions interconnected by a computer network, each electronic auction having an associated data repository, the method comprising:
receiving input identifying an item; and
instructing a software search agent to search for the item on the computer network in the respective data repositories of one or more of the electronic auctions.

I'd say that at first blush, this is an interesting claim. OK, so on to obviousness - the wayback machine shows ebay back to 1997 (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ebay.com) and this patent has priority back to mid-1995.

Makes me say hmmmm, it's gonna be an interesting fight.

1. Post it on Sourceforge.
Open Source advocates often search sourceforge for projects that might fulfill their needs. Plus, sourceforge helps you build a community, and external people can analyze your sourcecode directly without having to download the tgz. It also gives you the advantage of having version control systems for the development.

2. Build a community, make a forum.
A community is very important, and user forums are a MUST. If you don't have forums, you also make the impression that your program is a "single user" program (single user programs often lack quality due to not enough user base, beta testers, etc.) and that its support might finish unexpectedly. (Making developer forums is also encouraged)

3. Revamp your website.
Finally, try to make a more impressive website, having a dull website can scare potential users away (typical thought: "if they program the same way they make websites...").

Compare a typical open source website before and after redesigning the webpage. Which one looks more appealing? By personal experience, I can tell you that if new users have to choose, they'll choose the software with better webpage, regardless of the software quality.

4. Advertise.
Finally, try to advertise in more places, make your webpages google friendly, etc.

i'm not so clear on canadian rights and whatnot, but in the US we have this 'ammendment' that says we can SAY whatever we please ... print whatever we please, ect, ect, this that and the other ...

Even in the US, there are limits to free speech. You can be arrested and charged for uttering a death threat. You can be held accountable for slander and liabel. This is no different.

to me, it shouldn't matter if he hosted or owned such a 'questionable' site, or content ... did he commit crime(s)?

Well, yes he did. He apparantly violated the criminal code section on "Hate Propaganda", which would be the textbook definition of commiting a crime.

is anyone tangibly hurt from his postings?

I imagine nobody here has seen the website in question, as it was taken offline a few years ago. As it happens, however, the WayBack Machine at archive.org has copies of it available for viewing:

http://www.tri-cityskins.com/">http://web.archive. org/web/*/http://www.tri-cityskins.com/

Now it looks to me like there are a variety of areas on the website which are direct incitements towards violence. This bit is quite telling:

"We are NOT strong believers in a political resolution to our movement, it is a war, it will be faught like a war!"

I don't have the time to look through all of this crap to see if there are any specific incitements to violence -- but I have little doubt it is there. They make their intent fairly clear from a quick perusal of these old archives IMO.

where does it end? how liable is yahoo for it's random automated-make-your-own-website nonsense, where i am sure all sorts of hate material exists? bleh ... ranting, sorry, but, really ... c'mon?

Again -- if the President and CEO of Yahoo! Inc. were to use their ISP business as a front to a hate sight, and if Yahoo's Board of Directors were to authorize and write up a hate site, and then put it up on Yahoo, they would be liable.

That is the situation we have here. One of the men involved in running the site also ran (runs?) the web hosting provider. He was charged the fine as the individual who created the content, and not as a corporate entity.

You're liable for the content you create. He created the content. The fact that he also runs the web hosting service that hosted the content isn't of particular note nor interest for the sake of the judgement. The ass-hat created hate propoganda and put it online. That is what he was fined for. He should feel lucky that he didn't find his ass in jail over it.

Yaz.

i'm not so clear on canadian rights and whatnot, but in the US we have this 'ammendment' that says we can SAY whatever we please ... print whatever we please, ect, ect, this that and the other ...

Even in the US, there are limits to free speech. You can be arrested and charged for uttering a death threat. You can be held accountable for slander and liabel. This is no different.

to me, it shouldn't matter if he hosted or owned such a 'questionable' site, or content ... did he commit crime(s)?

Well, yes he did. He apparantly violated the criminal code section on "Hate Propaganda", which would be the textbook definition of commiting a crime.

is anyone tangibly hurt from his postings?

I imagine nobody here has seen the website in question, as it was taken offline a few years ago. As it happens, however, the WayBack Machine at archive.org has copies of it available for viewing:

http://www.tri-cityskins.com/">http://web.archive. org/web/*/http://www.tri-cityskins.com/

Now it looks to me like there are a variety of areas on the website which are direct incitements towards violence. This bit is quite telling:

"We are NOT strong believers in a political resolution to our movement, it is a war, it will be faught like a war!"

I don't have the time to look through all of this crap to see if there are any specific incitements to violence -- but I have little doubt it is there. They make their intent fairly clear from a quick perusal of these old archives IMO.

where does it end? how liable is yahoo for it's random automated-make-your-own-website nonsense, where i am sure all sorts of hate material exists? bleh ... ranting, sorry, but, really ... c'mon?

Again -- if the President and CEO of Yahoo! Inc. were to use their ISP business as a front to a hate sight, and if Yahoo's Board of Directors were to authorize and write up a hate site, and then put it up on Yahoo, they would be liable.

That is the situation we have here. One of the men involved in running the site also ran (runs?) the web hosting provider. He was charged the fine as the individual who created the content, and not as a corporate entity.

You're liable for the content you create. He created the content. The fact that he also runs the web hosting service that hosted the content isn't of particular note nor interest for the sake of the judgement. The ass-hat created hate propoganda and put it online. That is what he was fined for. He should feel lucky that he didn't find his ass in jail over it.

Yaz.

It used to belong to Live Networks Inc (check Wayback). They are a vendor of streaming media tools. They had the domain since at least 1998.

Fixed your link:

http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/www.goog le.com

That's pretty interesting, though. A time before Google was mainstream, back when we searched the web with AltaVista or Excite or Infoseek.

Everything starts in beta. We just tend to forget that when we use things so much.

At least they managed to take http://web.archive.org/web/19981202230410/http://w ww.google.com/> out of beta

It's not a big group. They have recruitment problems; Osama PAYS people to be in the background of film shoots for his "army".

You care to back this up?

Sure:

[ EXCERPT , CNN EXCLUSIVE VIDEO : BIN LADEN, SURROUNDED BY ARMED , MASKED SOLDIERS ]

VO: Even bin Ladens displays of strength to the Western media were faked. The fighters in this video had been hired for the day and told to bring their own weapons. For beyond this small group, bin Laden had no formal organisation until the Americans invented one for him.

From this documentary, which you can view here. Three hours of your life, it's worth it though.

Check out the Wiki page on it too...

Next step for this band and others to follow; produce and deliver an Album (as in collection of songs, not vinyl) that can be offered to those 250,000+ fans and growing without ever burning one CD.

There are many netlabels already doing this. Is that what you mean?