Slashdot Mirror

It gets earlier than that. Remember, Google was once called Backrub.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021030152640/www-db.s tanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg

Sergey in 96.

http://web.archive.org/web/19971221012817/http://s lashdot.org/

Well, it renders better in firefox ;)

Higher resolution version on archive.org ...not because I want to see him in drag or anything..just purely for the geek points. >_> no really...

I'm stunned that there is not more of a response to this news here on Slashdot. OpenLaszlo is a great product. You can author some really nice applications using their framework, and it's open source to top if off.

Response is subdued because the Slashdot community is still reeling over the shocking news that the Wayback Machine web archive archives web pages, even extremely popular ones like Google.

http://web.archive.org/web/19981206064412/www.slas hdot.org/

Example #2

Example #3

Example #4

I could go on...

"I took a peek at WayBackMachine.com and found Google's first website."

Technically this is incorrect, the first 'Google website' is archived under google.standford.edu. Although obviously he meant the first Google.com webpage, I thought i'd post it for the sake of enjoyment I get from being annoying.

Don't miss the pictures and stats of Google hardware, or Sergey's and Larry's Stanford pages either for those who haven't seen it all before.

"I took a peek at WayBackMachine.com and found Google's first website."

Technically this is incorrect, the first 'Google website' is archived under google.standford.edu. Although obviously he meant the first Google.com webpage, I thought i'd post it for the sake of enjoyment I get from being annoying.

Don't miss the pictures and stats of Google hardware, or Sergey's and Larry's Stanford pages either for those who haven't seen it all before.

"I took a peek at WayBackMachine.com and found Google's first website."

Technically this is incorrect, the first 'Google website' is archived under google.standford.edu. Although obviously he meant the first Google.com webpage, I thought i'd post it for the sake of enjoyment I get from being annoying.

Don't miss the pictures and stats of Google hardware, or Sergey's and Larry's Stanford pages either for those who haven't seen it all before.

"I took a peek at WayBackMachine.com and found Google's first website."

Technically this is incorrect, the first 'Google website' is archived under google.standford.edu. Although obviously he meant the first Google.com webpage, I thought i'd post it for the sake of enjoyment I get from being annoying.

Don't miss the pictures and stats of Google hardware, or Sergey's and Larry's Stanford pages either for those who haven't seen it all before.

"I took a peek at WayBackMachine.com and found Google's first website."

Technically this is incorrect, the first 'Google website' is archived under google.standford.edu. Although obviously he meant the first Google.com webpage, I thought i'd post it for the sake of enjoyment I get from being annoying.

Don't miss the pictures and stats of Google hardware, or Sergey's and Larry's Stanford pages either for those who haven't seen it all before.

the correct way to do an embedded link is to use the ascii code for the colon (%3A) and the forward slash (%2F)

http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http%3A% 2F%2Fw ww.slashdot.org%2F

And you can use the <URL:http://example.com/> method to get rid of one of the extra spaces (in the www):

http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org%2F

the correct way to do an embedded link is to use the ascii code for the colon (%3A) and the forward slash (%2F)

http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http%3A% 2F%2Fw ww.slashdot.org%2F

And you can use the <URL:http://example.com/> method to get rid of one of the extra spaces (in the www):

http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http%3A% 2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org%2F

1997
1998
1999
2000

Take a look once their server comes up.

(on a side note, Slashcode interprets embedded http://links/ (as in : http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http://w ww.slashdot.org/ incorrectly).

1997
1998
1999
2000

Take a look once their server comes up.

(on a side note, Slashcode interprets embedded http://links/ (as in : http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http://w ww.slashdot.org/ incorrectly).

1997
1998
1999
2000

Take a look once their server comes up.

(on a side note, Slashcode interprets embedded http://links/ (as in : http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http://w ww.slashdot.org/ incorrectly).

1997
1998
1999
2000

Take a look once their server comes up.

(on a side note, Slashcode interprets embedded http://links/ (as in : http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http://w ww.slashdot.org/ incorrectly).

1997
1998
1999
2000

Take a look once their server comes up.

(on a side note, Slashcode interprets embedded http://links/ (as in : http://web.archive.org/web/20000301205131/http://w ww.slashdot.org/ incorrectly).

Damn, for once the Internet Wayback Machine let me down -- no entries for http://www.walmart-foundation.org./

--
get a free laptop

I couldn't access 127.0.0.1 so I tried archive.org, seems the sites admins have blocked archiving:

We're sorry, access to http://127.0.0.1/* has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.

and Google reports " Sorry, no information is available for the URL 127.0.0.1 "

couldn't translate it via babelfish either :-( Could someone post the contents of 127.0.0.1 - thanks!

The reason why I prefer Firefox can be summed up in one word: CSS. In particular, I would like to make a web page that uses 100% CSS for layout, but, right now, I can't because of MSIE's broken css.

In more detail, I want a web page that is usable (doesn't require scrolling) at all screen resolutions and on all browsers, while still having a sidebar defined via CSS. The way to do this is with the max-width CSS attribute; this way, when the content becomes smaller than the screen size, the elements sized with max-width become smaller while the fixed sized elements stay the same size.

However, I can't do this because MSIE 6.x, which is about 90% of the web surfing public and about 30-40% of the people who go my web site, doesn't support it. I don't want to use the non-standard expression hack bacause that may break in MSIE 7. Ditto with all the hacks that hide CSS from MSIE while keeping the CSS visible to other browsers (the one hack I do use, the include(file.css) hack to make the CSS invisible to Netscape 4, causes the Wayback machine to not render the CSS when looking at older versions of my web page in Firefox)

The only way I can make variable-width elements which are (pretty much) guaranteed to not break with future browsers is to use a table, since the 1990s table rendering algorithm does make the table narrower when the browser screen becomes narrower than the table.

This, however, breaks in Dillo, which has broken table layout. Since Dillo is, like, 0.1% of the browsing public, I just have to make the page look a little worse in Dillo (it's still usable, but one has to scroll between the navigation bar and the content of the web page when viewing in Dillo at 640x480)

If MSIE had working CSS, I wouldn't have to do this; I would put all of the layout in CSS, which will make the web page look better in Dillo, Netscape 4, and look better if someone prints out the web page.

This is why I want more people to use Firefox (or Opera): So that I can more comfortably set up CSS without breaking legacy browsers.

PDF and DjVu address slightly different neads. DjVu is 'just' a fancy bitmap image format, specifically designed to give great results on multi-page documents. It's used for this purpose by Archive.org to display their collection of public domain books.

While some places do you PDF purely as an image container, it has a much wider scope.

In 1993, players would routinely pay around $3-$6 per hour for text-based, commercial multiplayer online games versus today's ~$14.95/mo flatrate.

I got my first job in the industry working for a company that produced such a game. If memory serves, players for that game could get a dedicated Tymnet pipe to play the game, flatrate, for a mere $1,000.00/mo.

We politely referred to those players as being "dedicated." Or, on occasion, "committed."

People do not wake up one morning and decide to be homosexual. It is who they are

If you're implying that people are born gay, I'd like to have a look at your research, because pretty much everything I've ever seen used to support this has been subsequently discredited.

How Big Is 33.5 Terabytes? (however some infos about Wayback Machine go out of date; for now it's quite possible that WM contains approximately 1 petabyte of data and is currently growing at a rate of 20 terabytes per month).

The Library of Congress (20 million books, not counting pictures) - 20 terabytes

Provisions which, by their nature, should remain in effect beyond the termination of this License shall survive.

It's not entirely clear what that means, and I'm pretty sure it would be unenforceable. It also says:

If this License is terminated for any reason, You must delete all copies of the BitKeeper Software and cease using the BitKeeper Software.

i.e. you must delete all copies of the software as well as ceasing to use it.

Anyway, it would be pretty stupid for McVoy to try to sue Linus or other former BitKeeper users at this point, even if the license provided any justification for doing so.

Content of the Patent US 4698672 Relevant to JPEG

The patent refers mostly to video compression. Some claims can be applied to still image compression as well. The central claims are formulated in Claim 1, 13, 38 and 39.

These describe a well adapted code book used in the encoding process (Claims 1 and 13) and the decoding of the codestream (Claims 38 and 39), followed by entropy encoding. The key point of this algorithm is the use of so called "runs", sequences of identical symbols, encoded by the number and the value of the symbols in the run.

Does JPEG use methods claimed by US-Patent 4698672?

Despite differences in nomenclature and small deviations of the described algorithms the answer has to be in the affirmative, as both algorithms are close enough in details and in general. The similarities are as follows:

1. The data stream is segmentated into runs of the most common symbol.
2. Each run is characterized by a pair of symbols (n, a) with n indicating the length of the run and a information about the next symbol delimiting the run. This extends all the way to the last symbol.
3. The remaining information is encoded using a special codebook.
4. Runs of the most common symbol that reach all the way to the end of the block are encoded using the special EOB symbol.
5. The codestream rewritten using the codebook is finally Huffman entropy encoded.

The algorithm used in JPEG is very close to the technology described in Claims 1,13, 38 and 39. The two methods of encoding are not identical but similar to the point of algorithmic equality.

Can "prior art" be proven in the case of Patent?

The main ideas, methods and numerical experiments of the key parts of the invention, especially Claim 13 concerning the codebook content, had already been published in several articles before the registration of the patent.:

1. H. Meyr, H.G. Rosdolsky and T. Huang, "Optimum Run length Codes, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol.22, no 6, June 1974 , pp 826-835
2. R.B.Arps, "The Statistical Dependence of Run-Lengths in Printed Matter", Nachrichtentechnische Fachberichte, vol 40, pp 218-226, 1971
3. A.N.Netravali, F.W.Mounts and E.G.Bowen, "Ordering Techniques for Coding of Two-Tone Facsimile Pictures", The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol.55, pp 1539-1552, 1976
4. H.Gharavi, Conditional Variable-Length Coding for Gray-Level Pictures, AT&T Bell Lab.Technical Journal, Vol. 63, pp 249 -260, 1984

The general principle of encoding more common symbols in code of shorter length, and less common symbols in code of increased length has been in use since at least 1828 when Samuel Morse invented his alphabet. The Morsealphabet assigns longer code to less common symbols and shorter to more common ones, thus assign the shortest to e, then n, r, i, s, t. E Shannon formulated a mathematical theory of data compression using statistical correlations between spatially subsequent symbols and the encoding into code of length according to frequency 50 years ago.

Does JPEG Infringe Upon US-Patent 4698672?

First of all, despite the fact that the two algorithms are not truly identical they are similar enough to support the idea that JPEG does touch upon the claims made in the so called "Forgent-patent".

But it can be safely assumed that JPEG does not infringe on the patent as "prior art" can be proven.

The quoted literature does not describe the claims identically. But it does prove that even though the claims are differing in minor details from the ideas, methiods and results expressed within the articles the invention would have been obvious to an expert familiar with the ideas of the articles. They furthermore prove that the whole content of the invention was known to US scientists at the time of the registration of the patent.

This should result in a rejection of any patent related claims by Forgent Networks.

I know you're actually trolling, but to those who care about other great companies for gay and lesbian employees, here's a good link:

http://www.businessreform.com/article.php?articleI D=11076&ofid=2&ruser=yes

The Advocate also publishes a list of the top ten companies to work for every year. Here's the list for 2000 (The 2004 list doesn't seem to be archived on their site):

http://web.archive.org/web/20040215174655/http://w ww.advocate.com/html/stories/823/823_topten.asp

The HRC (The Human Rights Campaign) also maintains such a list, the annual State of the Workplace:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publicati ons1/State_of_the_Workplace/SOTW_03.pdf

and the Corporate Equality Index:

http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publicati ons1/Corporate_Equality_Index2/2004CEIReport.pdf

If you don't like the subject matter, don't read further into it, but some people around here might actually be interested.

Wayback datestamps the first version in February 2004

It should be pretty easy to get a high power and supremely noisy transmitter to play havock with this threat to national security.

Might even make the pringles cans go 'POOF'

"If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it."

No it is not. It may be illegal, but it is not stealing. Is it rape? Is it treason? Is it pornographic? Is it breaking and entering? Is it assault and battery?

If you go to:

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A %22drew%20Roberts%22

and download some of my stuff and then violate my copyrights in some way, you are not stealing from me.

OK, now if someone finds some way to take my copyrights from me, that would be stealing or fraud or something more like stealing.

all the best,

drew

Here you go. Yes, it does fall apart fairly quickly. It's not only very unconvincing from the beginning, but also prone to falling into a heuristics loop like it does at the end, which would be amusing if the loop didn't have such boring results.

From the link, got to love this conversation.

Strangely, it seems only to willing to broadcast the virtues of Lynx.

We've found that you have language on your site that draws undue attention to the Google ads you're serving through AdSense. This language may encourage your users to click on the ads that you're serving through AdSense. However, if users click on ads without the intention of converting to customers, advertiser costs can be artificially inflated. Therefore, such activity is in violation of our program policies and we kindly ask that you remove the following language from your website[...]

I used to work for MatchLogic, which was an non-evil DoubleClick. Regarding tracking of purchases, it's easily done. When you receive an ad, you get a bonus cookie with it. Then on the destination site (Dell, etc) there would be "web pings" (1x1 gifs) on various pages. This way we could track how far into the site you got, if you ended up making a purchase, etc. Not every advertiser did this with us, but those that did were always impressed. But it doesn't really help in terms of weeding out spiders/automated clicks/etc. I was actually involved heavily in that, and while lots of code was written to automate it, and logs were sent to an outside auditing firm, I'd still often take an hours worth of logs once a week and look it over manually (Which was still an impressive amount of data, about 12,500,000 log entries in an hours worth of logs).

There is a good, high quality, low cost alternative to buying expensive load-balancing hardware. You can run LVS/IPVS on a linux box and turn it into an intelligent load-balancing router.

At The Archive we have dedicated LVS servers, but if you don't want to spend any extra $$ you can use a machine that is already providing some other service. You can use keepalived to make multiple LVS servers failover for each other.

I wrote a (very brief) HOWTO for setting up LVS/Keepalived. It is Archive-centric, but should be somewhat useful outside The Archive too. Just use rc.local or rc.inet2 or whatever instead of rc.final.

LVS/Keepalived (which is both, free and Free) has worked very well for us thusfar. Our www farm typically handles 30 to 60 http requests per second, with intermittent spiking above 250 http requests per second, and lvs01 sits at 99% idle all day.

-- TTK

The reason is that artists don't have a culture of sharing like coders do (way before FSF or GNU), because that model doesn't really work with art - at least traditional art for obvious reasons.


What are those reasons? The OSS model seems to work quite well for musical artists. Why should graphic artists be any different?

Download here

This stuff is way over hyped. All you need to know to deal with such an event I learned in elementry school.

Just watch the vid.

Duck and Cover

This means that, in theory, some nogoodnik could obfuscate legitimate (a.k.a. legal) file sharing. For example, I have a Creative Commons licensed CD that can (and should) legally circulate on P2P networks. Someone (a.k.a. ex-girlfriend) could create junk "versions" of my music and prevent it from circulating properly. That would Suck.

Also good free sound-files are hard to find.

Even if you forget fair use of ripping a 2 second gunshot from any movie their is still hundreds of public domain films complete with soundtrack available here..

Who needs to watch something professional anything when you can have the story of two Pizza Delivery Jedi and a fonzie-looking Yoda?

You forgot the href bit:

archive.org

archive.org

You forgot the href bit:

archive.org

archive.org

This guys used to call himself the blindfolded pianist. Identity crisis?

In short, I do it myself. I have downloaded Shorten files (and, if possible, their WAV equivalents so I don't have to run the non-free shorten program) and then recompressed the uncompressed data with FLAC. archive.org carries a lot of Shorten files you can use for testing.

Every time I test this, I see that FLAC compresses more tightly than Shorten. But I'm told there are other lossless audio compressors out there that do a better job than FLAC. I've seen the results of some of them, but I don't know where to point you to to test this except to try making your own tests and compare file sizes and compression/decompression times.

It's not difficult to write a shell script to do this for you.

Your reply is offtopic...I didn't say anything that you refute, or even address. And I don't even disagree with everything you've said. But for those items I do disagree with...

First, you think nobody's taking resposibility? Look at all the people who've settled, rather than go to court over it. If paying excessive fees isn't taking responsibility, I don't know what is.

Second, Not all music is under licenses that make it illegal to download without paying. Take a look at the stuff on Ampcast, for example. Or stuff in the audio section of the Internet Archive. Or the stuff on Ourmedia.org. People have the right to make their own works available for legal free download--and some do.

I've been using this to track packages for a year. The internet archive says it's been available since February of '04.

But anything on the Google blog is news, I guess.

You could do this at least on February 2 of last year.