Slashdot Mirror

You may want to apply a little lateral thinking to your research efforts next time. Go to the internet archive, or just follow this link. Read up. This was on their wbesite for quite some time, although it no longer is. China may not be a customer right now, but they certainly were in 2001-either that or Websense was so desperate for press coverage that they not only linked to an LA Times article claiming their software was purchased by the Chinese government and used by them, but linked to said article as well. Somehow, I really doubt that-I don't care how desperate you are for coverage, linking to an article making false claims that you sold your product to the chinese government to block anything, news or otherwise, shows a considerable lack of judgement.

I frequently visit http://www.archive.org/ to pull up sites no longer available. They typically have the content of sites, less the images.

Internet Explorer 5 for UNIX supported Solaris and HP-UX, but not IRIX.

http://web.archive.org/web/19990508060533/www.micr osoft.com/unix/ie/SysReq/default.ASP

The game plays a little differently than Bionic Commando, and has much more sophisticated physics, but the concept is the same. You use an elastic fishing line to grapple onto objects and swing yourself around. Because the line is made of rubber, it's stretchable and bendable, allowing you to pull off some crazy maneuvers, such as swinging your line underneath a platform, then retracting the line to fling yourself up onto the ledge. The learning curve is sharp, but once you learn how to play it is a tremendously fun game. I highly recommand this quirky little game to any fan of Bionic Commando (or video games in general).

If you wanna see what I'm talking about, you should check out this video of the game being played to its full capacity.

http://www.musicrebellion.com/">Music Rebellion already tried this a year ago already; they've more or less folded now. Realistically, it's doesn't seem to be a very popular option with the college audience.

web archive has a recentish version, but its grinding quite slowly.

Really, can't we all just get along?

And so what? I've yet to have a media file successfully download from archive.org. The servers are too overloaded to allow a connection to stay open long enough. With a little patience you can access their Wayback Machine and other repositories of small files, but their collection of media files is effectively inacessible.

The demoscene, a collection of artistist nerds making cool little animations, spawned something of great importance: the netlabel scene.

Now I'm not sure if the demoscene is as large as it was when I was a part of it (future crew days), the netlabels are bursting at the seams and there is A LOT of high quality music in many different genres available. Several promiment artists have their roots in the netlabel scene when trackers were still #1 (Fast Tracker, Scream Tracker, Impulse Tracker), but now adays, while trackers are still in use (Buzz, MPT, Renoise), there are a lot of home studios and garage bands releasing music through netlabels as mp3s and oggs.

Thinnerism
Ronin Collective
Camomille
Kahvi
One


There are also two main repositories where netlabel releases are uploaded, available at:
Scene.Org
Archive.Org's netlabel repository

These netlabels are starting to be taken a lot more seriously these days, and has even attracted corporate attention. Mercedez Benz's "Soundtrack of the Autobahn" contained several prominent netlabel artists.

While 90% of the music available is electronic in nature, there are still some artists (including myself) that are hitting up other genres. It's just a matter of looking. Some of these artists go on tours, and in some cases, the netlabel itself sponsors their artists for tours.

So for people who want to seek non corporate tainted music, the netlabel scene is where to look.

A lot of the good stuff on there isn't even music.

This, for example, is a nice collection of binaural nature sounds. They're basically just very well done, relaxing sounds (ocean, frogs, etc.), that you could use to help relax, take a nap, meditate, etc.

There are some nice indie/old tracks too, though much of that is pretty cruddy.

Link here. They've only got about 6800 recordings so far, but it's only going to get bigger.

Like the Grateful Dead? And all the bands that followed their lead, giving us over 1000 different bands with music on the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive, and thousands more that allow their music to be legally traded on the Etree Torrent server?

Ok, so you may say that's just live music, but if you want studio music, there's the Internet Archive (again) with Netlabels and Open Source Audio. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the news here.

Like the Grateful Dead? And all the bands that followed their lead, giving us over 1000 different bands with music on the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive, and thousands more that allow their music to be legally traded on the Etree Torrent server?

Ok, so you may say that's just live music, but if you want studio music, there's the Internet Archive (again) with Netlabels and Open Source Audio. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the news here.

Like the Grateful Dead? And all the bands that followed their lead, giving us over 1000 different bands with music on the Internet Archive's Live Music Archive, and thousands more that allow their music to be legally traded on the Etree Torrent server?

Ok, so you may say that's just live music, but if you want studio music, there's the Internet Archive (again) with Netlabels and Open Source Audio. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the news here.

I've been wondering why more people haven't tuned into real free music. Since it comes in "pure" form (wanna remix it? Some of the sounds were cool? Interested more about how it's made? It's all in the file) there's not many songs with vocals, which really - they just fucks up the enjoyment of the sound 99% of the time. The "bitrate" isn't often above 100, I even have some awesome songs that are less than 10kbps, and you get about 2x compression if you rar them, which is supported natively by players.

Of note in the mp3 universe is Lackluster - I've been listening to him a lot, he's got his stuff on archive.org, I could really recommend this live thing (Ambient, techno, drone, with a little sprinkling of computer-game-y-ness).

Then, uh, VAC - the most experimental band in the universe (really, fuck tool, fuck radiohead), they released their old shit for free (mp3) - I'd say it's their best work, particular notabilities happy commie (an actual thought-provoking song) and cease to understand.

We tend to forget the really bad stuff,but basically sci-fi television/movies has always been a refuge for hacks and wannabes.
Plan 9 from Outer Space can be legally downloaded http://www.archive.org/details/Plan9FromOuterSpace
Don't hold you're breath waiting for sci-fi to "pick-up." Just look for good shows, some of them will happen to fit the sci-fi genre!

According to documents filed in the case by Preston Gates & Ellis (yep, Bill G's dad!), Amazon is joined in the lawsuit by A9.com in demanding injunctive relief and unspecified triple damages for "irreparable injury and damages" as a result of Cendant's infringement of the following patents:

Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network (5,715,399), which is held by Bezos and covers displaying "the last N digits of the credit card number, where N is an integer,"

Internet-based customer referral system (6,029,141), which is also held by Bezos and covers Amazon's affiliate program,

Electronic commerce using multiple roles (6,629,079), which covers the use of "multiple electronic shopping carts," and

Navigating within a body of data using one of a number of alternative browse graphs (6,625,609), which describes how one might sell "a Pez candy dispenser in the shape of the Marvin the Martian."

BTW, Bezos' '399 patent was the subject of a curious 2001 Prior Art contest run by the Bezos-funded BountyQuest - ties to Bezos were never disclosed and the contest results were never revealed.

How about PETAs own "eat the whales, save chicken and pigs" campaign? Guess who is the owner of the http://www.eatthewhales.com/ site? Of course, now it redirects to "Go Vegetarian", but guess what originally was on that page? No need to guess hard, the WayBackMachine Internet archives can show it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010725181354/www.eatt hewhales.com/
The funniest thing is at the end of those click-throughts that explain you how eating whales is much more humane than eating chicken. It says: "You can help save the whales, too. Click Here!", urging you to write protests to those countries that... kill whales to eat them!

Hypocrites!

What seems to happen here is that a person uploads a movie to Archive claiming that it's public domain and Archive does whatever research they do and decide whether to distribute it.

Another post points out that the Copyright Office database says Plan 9 was registered in 1958 and renewed in 1986, so the reasonable assumption would be that it's still covered unless the owner places it in Public Domain.

Archive's page for the movie says the uploader's site is at www.k-otic.com, a site which is basically an uploader's blog which does claim to have uploaded it.

The person who uploaded it doesn't seem to really do any research on movies' copyright status before uploading; (s)he says in a post about another upload that:

"the problem is that there is no really reliable source list/search engine on the internet where you can go and find out
but the people at the internet archive check all uploads and when they say it`s ok ... it`s ok"

Summary: there's no reason to believe Plan 9 actually is Public Domain, since the first person to make the claim (the uploader) admits that (s)he has no way to be sure about the status of the movies (s)he uploads and Archive gives no evidence to support the claim except the uploader's original assertion.

-robin

I'm getting good speeds from their FTP.

DejaNews http://dejanews.com/">December 1996

DejaNews today

DejaNews started in 1995 and aimed to carry every mainline newsgroup from May 1995 on, plus as many older articles as it could get.

here is an article dated Fri May 15 18:01:16 1981. If the link goes stale, just use Google's advanced search to search by date.

Tim,

You may want to take a look at MontaVista's real-time Linux offerings (http://www.mvista.com./ I was the technical lead for a real-time Java controller core that ran atop Hard Hat Linux and implemented both BACNet and Profibus (via Applicom dedicated I/O cards) for building automation and industrial robots, respectively.

I sold the rights to the software to the oil drilling equipment company that implemented the industrial robots but I'll be happy to assist if you want to discuss. You can find me as pr3d4t0r in irc.freenode.net ##java or chupacabra in Undernet #java.

Here is an old page describing some of the stuff that we did: http://web.archive.org/web/20010302021846/http://c ime.net/

I'll be a speaker at the Java in Action conference in Orlando this coming October; one of the sessions will talk about recent work I made in embedded/mobile/full-automation stuff. Most of my work is now based on Linux with some OS X, Solaris, and QNX to spice things up (I now work full-time for someone else; got tired of the startup game...)

Cheers and good luck,

E

...but look at his disclaimer!!

http://web.archive.org/web/20031001214601/www.mp3s 4free.net/disclaimer.shtml

"All audio files can be downloaded for evaluation purposes only and must be deleted after 24 hours! If you like a song, please buy the original. If you don't agree with these rules, our webmaster of mp3s4free.net, our host and our advertisers are not responsible for anything. When you download a song, you take full responsibility for doing so. None of the files on this site are stored on our servers. We are just providing links to remote files."

IANAL, but that disclaimer looks rock solid. I think I will use this disclaimer on my own sites, and maybe stick it on my car so that if I ever have an accident, even if it's my fault, I can just point at the disclaimer and I'll be in the clear.

"Oh, I don't know, maybe a link to a lot of indy sites where you can download really good music without all the claptrap"

Doesn't look like indy music to me

http://web.archive.org/web/20031010135440/http://w ww.mp3s4free.net/

but then again why do research when you can just post flamebait to slashdot.

"Was the man found guilty of linking to a list of pirated mp3s? Or did he link to a site which contained, among a lot of other things, pirated mp3s?"

Goto his website and have a look for yourself

http://web.archive.org/web/20031010135440/http://w ww.mp3s4free.net/

And this was what he was offering as *Popular Downloads* on his front page.

White Flag
by Dido
P.I.M.P
by 50 Cent
Me Against The Music (CDS)
by Britney Spears Ft Madonna
Baby Boy
by Beyonce ft. Sean Paul
Someday
by Nickelback
Stand Up (Radio Edit)
by Ludacris Ft Shawnna
Right Thurr
by Chingy
Shake Ya Tailfeather
by Nelly ft. P. Diddy
Unwell
by Matchbox 20
Get Low
by Lil Jon and The East Side Boyz

Cut and dry case it seems to me.

Hmmmmm slashdot doesn't like the html link I put. Here in plain text

http://web.archive.org/web/20031010135440/http://w ww.mp3s4free.net/

For all the tech savvyness slashdotter profess they can be really dumd sometimes .... No assumption at all

http://www.mp3s4free.net/">www.mp3s4free.net

http://web.archive.org/web/20031010135440/http://w ww.mp3s4free.net/

It is pretty obvious he was acting as a filesharing hub pretty much as Napster did. This was not coincidental linking it was linking to copyright infringed material for the express pursuit of aquiring advertising revenue. He knew exactly what he was doing. No sympathy here.

Again the slashdot moral majority starts having a blabbering fit over thier rights being infringed and all that but this is a pretty simple case. He was actively using his website to encourage a very specifical criminal activity not a few coincidental links in a sea of other detail.

Let's not forget Imposter Boy:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030212202753/http://w ww.chrispy.net/marca/gqarticle.html ....Unless you want to believe the marketing goons at Netscape.

Kinda odd that the guy that was supposed to have written Mosaic single-handedly didn't write ANY code at Netscape.

The only article you can find on what happened with NCSA Mosaic was in a GQ article from 1997. It's called Imposter Boy, and can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030212202753/http://w ww.chrispy.net/marca/gqarticle.html

Call it sour grapes, or whatever you want, but I defy you to find any other articles about what happened back in those days... you can't. It's all because of the spin that Netscape put on it.

wakka chikka wakka chikka

They're implying that when the lawyers queried the old versions, that somehow the wayback machine really grabbed the copies old copies straight from Healthcare Advocates' website.

Actually, that is what the Internet Archive claims to be. http://www.archive.org/about/about.php

Also, they have clear instructions on how to remove content from the archive here.

Even if the people doing the suing, are 100% correct in their claims. I don't see any harm that has been done, and simply removing the content should be more than sufficient.

Actually, that is what the Internet Archive claims to be. http://www.archive.org/about/about.php

Also, they have clear instructions on how to remove content from the archive here.

Even if the people doing the suing, are 100% correct in their claims. I don't see any harm that has been done, and simply removing the content should be more than sufficient.

Yes, the article is misleading. What the Internet Archive does is respect the user-agent diallow -- and if the crawler finds that it is disallowed, it will stop access to previously archived material. You can read about it here: http://www.archive.org/about/exclude.php

First and foremost, the existance of a robots.txt does not constitute a contract between the client (a web surfer/browser agent) and the server (the site hosting the content proper). Repeat that over and over. There is nothing stating that the existance of robots.txt on your server must be requested by my crawler or spider.

The Robot Exclusion Protocol is voluntary, yes, but check out this choice quote from the Internet Archive's page on exclusion:

The Internet Archive is not interested in offering access to Web sites or other Internet documents whose authors do not want their materials in the collection. To remove your site from the Wayback Machine, place a robots.txt file at the top level of your site (e.g. www.yourdomain.com/robots.txt) and then submit your site below.

The robots.txt file will do two things:

1. It will remove all documents from your domain from the Wayback Machine.
2. It will tell us not to crawl your site in the future.

That, to my mind, indicates an agreement on the part of the Internet Archive to respect REP. The question of when exactly this robots.txt file went up is still quite relevant, though.

there is no special exemption to copyright because you're Google or the Internet Archive

Also your analogy is misplaced. It would be more analogous to archiving broadcast television or radio. While its certainly problematic the internet archive does offer a system for exclusion of content.

The suite should be criticized as frivolous and economically detrimental to the archive foundation rather than debate what is not applicable in this case. Furthermore the archive does not have a lot of capital to go after. People who sue nonprofits are truly misguided. For the cost of your layers you could likely become a board member or buy a substantial say in its dealings.

The more interesting case will be when the TV broadcasters and Newspapers sue Google for (video.google and news.google respectively). Google being a corporation does have lots of capital and has profited off its archiving could afford comparable legal representation and would more or less be a fair case to set precedents for formal archival permissions.
But your overall sentiments are valid. Suing the archive foundation is just mean & uncreative.

They say the Internet Archive violated their robots.txt. For all we know, their server may have failed to return the text file when it was requested. Or maybe they made a typo, like so many people find out after they claim their robots.txt was violated.

However it happened, you can't expect the Internet Archive to not mess up from time to time. They work with so much data they can't be expected to make anything more than a best effort to filter out the unauthorized pages. The archive's importance is recognized by many, including the US Copyright Office, who granted them a DMCA Exemption to copy software. I suppose not even the Copyright Office thought they needed an exemption to archive the web.

In this case, the archive was used to gather evidence of wrongdoing. This is like suing witnesses for telling the truth, because the truth was bad for your case, and confidential for that reason.

And yet, that's how the Internet Archive tells people to remove previously archived material.

I hate to sound extremist/revolutionist/crazy, but this stuff really pisses me off. But what am I to do about it? Grabbing my guns and storming off to nowhere accomplishes nothing. The common person has no way to express him/her-self. Our politicians have let us down, and we have no recourse. It would seem at first that the traditional Lenin view of things is our only option, but history has not had favorable results with the proletariat trying to fix the problems with the structures of society, government, business. My initial hate toward society and all the other evil things started in high school. Following this I read some Marx, Lenin, and other works (including the Bible, as I was raised in a Christian home.) But there was really no answers. The view of the 'Communists' didn't seem to work in the real world since most people have this thing called 'Human Nature' which destroys all good intentions. And Christianity cares less about now and more about helping on person at a time and considering everything in the view of past, present and future. So I guess, in the end I don't know. And I don't think anyone else does either. How do we tell the people in power that we matter and that the @$#*ing Coorporations do not!?!

One of the largest problems with education (at least American education) is the utter lack of critical thinking skills. American education is based in doctrines developed by Horace Mann at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We need to educate children on more than the repetition of rote facts, and teach them to logically process information in a rigorous manner.

There's a wonderful article that's been thankfully saved from extinction by the Internet Archive called http://www.zolatimes.com/V4.39/sesame_epist.html"> Sesame Street, Epistemology, and Freedom that does an excellent job of laying out the kind of critical thinking skills needed to make people capable of understanding the modern world.

Beyond that, education should no longer be used as a system that shelters kids from real life. Students need to be held to high standards, and parents along with them. If someone like Jaime Escalante can take a group of kids that the system assumed would fail and make them perform, then it's clear that the system is letting kids down.

Human capital is crucial to the success of a modern society, and keeping a system around that's powered by bureaucratic inertia and doesn't do the job hurts not only the kids trapped in the system, but the country at large.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.time.com/t ime/magazine/1998/dom/980302/special_report.clinto ns_29.html

As long as there are multiple independent, uncensored, well-staffed resources such as archive.org and the wish of some significant segment of the general populace to engage in research, the danger of 1984 style history rewriting is diminished.

Link dead, try http://web.archive.org/web/20041027003014/http://w ww.fatalexception.org/action_item.html

And no music album has been composed on PocketPC PDA...

http://www.archive.org/audio/audiolisting-browse.p hp?cat=1847

> For example, Bounds checking gcc (that website is down right now

Archive.org has a mirror:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040611220045/http://w ww-ala.doc.ic.ac.uk/~phjk/BoundsChecking.html

I remember back in the http://www.yaho.com/">good old days (1998) when 'Yaho.com' was actually forwarded you to 'Typo.net'. Then it forwarded you to Yahoo. People were nice, no one wanted to hijack your PC... *sigh*

I am not sure if you are talking about the same product, but a Australian Outfit by the name of Silicon Breeze Pty Limited used to produce FreeBSD, Linux or Other open source jewellery. Including Beastie, Tux and Apache Quill/Feather statues out of quite a number of metals and alloys including Gold.

However they seem to have gone out of Business.

Their web address used to be:
http://www.siliconbreeze.com/ it doesn't exists anymore.

Here is Internet Archive link to the old site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040209165643/www.linu xjewellery.com/beastie/
OR
http://tinyurl.com/892st

For what its worth here is the postal address:
Silicon Breeze Pty Limited
49 Yarrabung Rd
St Ives NSW 2075
Australia

DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with the Silicon Breeze company.

~AC

Why did past projects fail? I think the main reasons are usability, lack of collaboration and the dot-com-crash. Wiki-like functionality is essential to allow specifications to evolve, and there needs to be a very simple and obvious process of pooling funds and finding projects to donate to.

A brief look suggests that Fundable, while simple and slick, is not yet optimal for the purposes of funding open source projects -- it appears to lack collaboration on specifications, milestones, a process for applying to implement someone else's suggestions, fine grained categorization and sorting, etc. (correct me if I'm wrong on any of this) That it succeeds for some projects regardless shows that there is a vacuum for a portal like this -- not just in open source development. It would give those who cannot contribute code a way to nevertheless help to "scratch their itches" in the open source software world.

It's a myth that it's a myth that Apache was named that. From their website, the FAQ originally said this:
http://apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name">http:// web.archive.org/web/19980128114236/http://apache.o rg/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name
And then said this:
http://www.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name">htt p://web.archive.org/web/20000815061003/http://www. apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name
Then they changed it to:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name">h ttp://web.archive.org/web/20021017033945/http://ht tpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name
Now they're trying to get rid of something they've perpetuated for years:
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name">h ttp://web.archive.org/web/20030603200610/http://ht tpd.apache.org/docs/misc/FAQ.html#name

and that seems to be the one that's remained until today. Who knows what it'll be tomorrow.