Slashdot Mirror


Google Expands Usenet Archive to 20 Years

Paul Boutin writes "The Ghost of Usenet Postings Past has returned to haunt many more of us: Google just announced the expansion of their Usenet archive back to May 3, 1981."Check out the past on Groups.google.com

499 comments

  1. Good thing? by chromeNG · · Score: 1

    Interesting, but I'm not sure I want to dig through all that stuff to find anything cool.

    1. Re:Good thing? by Guybrush1 · · Score: 2, Redundant

      You don't have to dig. Google has already given you links to a lot of good, historical posts.

      http://www.google.com/googlegroups/archive_annou nc e_20.html

    2. Re:Good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Their list is great to browse through, but there are some real gems off the beaten path as well...

      For instance, google points you to: "October, 1991 Linus Torvalds's Linux announcement"

      But you can also find a quite interesting, more preliminary announcement from him a few months earlier: "What would you like to see most in minix?"

      You can also read about Rob Malda's "Weird Problem while booting...", which is also the first time he calls himself 'Commander Taco' on Usenet. (October 1995)

      Post your interesting finds!

    3. Re:Good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the first time he calls himself 'Commander Taco' on Usenet. (October 1995)

      "It was 1995 and the worms had begun to eat into his brain..."

    4. Re:Good thing? by Glytch · · Score: 2

      I particularly liked how Linus mentioned that Hurd would be out soon after his post.

      And I'm so glad none of my posts have been archived for posterity. My name just turns up some Pearl Jam fan's posts. :)

    5. Re:Good thing? by GiMP · · Score: 2

      I personally like how he said he hasn't decided on a license and that it may be gnu-style :P

    6. Re:Good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Interesting, but I'm not sure I want to dig through all that stuff to find anything cool.

      Go on, it's fun.
      • First Y2K bug discussion I could find: 1985 on net.bugs.
      • Marvin Minsky discussing the physics of Larry Niven's Ringworld on sci.physics, 1990 (Minsky used to pop up in all kinds of unlikely threads, I recall).
      • Author Terry Pratchett's first posting on alt.fan.pratchett--July, 1992, and he still posts there regularly.
      • Courtney Love's USENET postings...
    7. Re:Good thing? by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 1

      [i]You can also read about Rob Malda's "Weird Problem while booting..." [google.com], which is also the first time he calls himself 'Commander Taco' on Usenet. (October 1995) [/i]

      Hmm, reading this makes me wonder where his spelling went askew. Perhaps somebody feels like doing a search to see if it was a gradual change, or if just one day he was slapped upside the head by the bad spelling fairy or something.

      --
      //FIXME: Bad .sig
  2. Oh dear by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ahh, to be young and brash again... oh, wait. Noooooooo!! Glad I've changed my email address since those long-(best)forgotten days. It wasn't me, I swear!

    --
    "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    1. Re:Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they don't have my posts in alt.angst. I wrote that stuff when I was sick in my head and before the doctors made me better.

    2. Re:Oh dear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember: God hates as all so you can kill yourself now and go to hell straight away. Saves you all those decades of miserable human existence.

  3. Yes! by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny

    Awright! Just think of all the old porn that awaits my eager stare! No sleep for me tonight.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Yes! by jackal! · · Score: 5, Funny
      Awright! Just think of all the old porn that awaits my eager stare!

      Yeah, all the porn in ASCII...

      --

      Who moderates the meta-moderators?

    2. Re:Yes! by cwebster · · Score: 2, Funny

      maybe you arent familiar with base64 encoding?

      hit up alt.binaries.* sometime

    3. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they don't archive binaries. Nevertheless, there are some classics worth looking into. Remember Ludwig Plutonium and his ATOM TOTALITY? Classic stuff. I forgot the name of the other quack who frequented sci.math and sci.physics back in the early 90's. Anybody remember the name? Those were some great arguments. And their sigs were hilarious too!

    4. Re:Yes! by syzygysucker · · Score: 0

      Oh, and don't forget to look at tis one.

    5. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robert McElwaine! You can't miss him!

    6. Re:Yes! by aenea · · Score: 1

      Alexander Abian, now sadly dead, and his ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA! Reorbit Venus

    7. Re:Yes! by bloo9298 · · Score: 1


      When did he die? And was he really a dishwasher at DartMouth?

    8. Re:Yes! by marnanel · · Score: 2
      --
      GROGGS: alive and well and living in
    9. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't alt.sex.stories and its various ancestors count as porn?

    10. Re:Yes! by aenea · · Score: 1

      Abian was a professor of mathematics at Iowa State. He died a couple of years ago.

      Ludwig was the one rumoured to be the dishwasher at Dartmouth. He'd use a Dartmouth email and news server to post.

    11. Re:Yes! by almightyjustin · · Score: 1

      Google does not archive attachments, or even anything in alt.binaries.*.

      --

      Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.

  4. 700 million messages! by jacobcaz · · Score: 1

    Awww yeah, 20 years of pr0n binaries to start sucking down!

    Seriously, won't this take many terabytes to store? The ISP I used to work for was keeping a dedicated T1 saturated 24x7 just to keep up a newsfeed. And they only keep stuff around for 14 days I believe.

    Insane.

    1. Re:700 million messages! by Lunastorm · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't have binary files on there. The only pr0n (why not just spell it as porn?) they have on there is erotic literature.

      --
      You die too easily.
    2. Re:700 million messages! by jpatters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only pr0n (why not just spell it as porn?) they have on there is erotic literature.

      And in alt.ascii-art.

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    3. Re:700 million messages! by mapinguari · · Score: 1

      Oh come on -- there's binaries, just not the ones you're looking for. There seems to be a pretty fair archive of comp.binaries.apple2.

  5. Now for... by Digitalia · · Score: 1

    Were binary groups around back then? If so, I'd love to see what kind of stuff was being posted back then. I can understand Google not posting the actual binaries, but couldn't they at least post zero files or some such?

    --
    Pax Digitalia
  6. alt.binaries.* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've said this once, i'll say it a thousand times.

    I'm not interested in the archives until they post all of the alt.binaries.*

    It's useless without all the wonderfully rich in content newsgroups available there.

  7. That darn Google... by edashofy · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think ANYBODY should be held liable for Usenet postings they made when they were 14 years old...it's like having naked baby pictures of yourself stapled to your forehead when you walk around...

    On the other hand, you can now go back and see who REALLY won all those flame wars you were involved in :)

    1. Re:That darn Google... by aussersterne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      *sucks in air*

      No doubt. I just went and had a read at a whole bunch of posts from 10-15 years ago in which I was often a real prick [and strangely enough, in which I seem to have more technical/coding prowess than I have now!?!]. There's nothing like humble pie and complete red-eared embarrassment at three in the morning -- embarrassment first at how one was acting, and second at no longer being able to fully understand technical discussions from one's own teenagehood!

      I'm in my late twenties now. I'm an author. My name is out there and is unique. Now, when people type my name into Google, they're going to pull up stuff I posted via free BBSs and tech bars when I was a prick of a teenaged punk-rocker in the '80s who [it would seem] really had a problem or two.

      *cringe*

      I'm going to go hide my head in the sand for a while, then quickly ink-jet myself a "live and learn" t-shirt.

      [Then, as soon as the sun comes up, I'm heading downtown to change my name.]

      --
      STOP . AMERICA . NOW
    2. Re:That darn Google... by tetrad · · Score: 4, Redundant
      I just went and had a read at a whole bunch of posts from 10-15 years ago in which I was often a real prick ... Then, as soon as the sun comes up, I'm heading downtown to change my name.

      Good news for reformed pricks, you don't have to change your name! Google lets you remove your articles from its archive.

      (Of course, the articles may still be in some other archive...)

    3. Re:That darn Google... by F452 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Fortunately, Google provides a way for you to remove your old posts.

    4. Re:That darn Google... by eXtro · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Being able to remove your own articles from a public forum beyond the "Oh shit! I hope I can cancel that before it propogates" devalues the archive and makes me lose a lot of respect for the people behind google.com. I've posted things I wish I wouldn't have on usenet before. Big deal. There was a bit of embarassment when my dad discovered how to search for my name on groups.google.com, but there were a lot more things that he was proud of. He didn't necessarily understand them, but he could see that they were well received.


      If you do things in public then you shouldn't be able to excise them from the publics memory, even if the thing you did was make a spectacular ass of yourself.

    5. Re:That darn Google... by kerrbear · · Score: 2

      Oddly, some of the newsgroups seem to be missing. In the 80's rec.arts.startrek was the most prolific group in the entire usenet and it absolutely does not exist in its original form (it was eventually broken up).

      Perhaps the original groups that were broken up before 1995 have not been added to the new archive. If so, this is a pretty major oversight. Or perhaps some of the groups were deemed irrelevant?

    6. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never post under real name under the internet, unless there is a good reason to.

    7. Re:That darn Google... by Syberghost · · Score: 2

      A LOT is missing.

      I not only can't find any of my old posts, but I can't find any of my NEW posts now.

      When I search on various combinations of my name, all I find is signature taglines quoting me...

    8. Re:That darn Google... by kerrbear · · Score: 2
      I not only can't find any of my old posts, but I can't find any of my NEW posts now.

      Hmmm, check your posting headers and see if you have

      'X-No-archive: yes'

      in them. Google states that they will honor the no archive header.
    9. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And people wonder why I insist on posting to /. as an AC?

    10. Re:That darn Google... by saint10 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of this... here is cmdrtaco's first usenet post... looks like he has a "thing" for mickey

    11. Re:That darn Google... by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      There was a bit of embarassment when my dad discovered how to search for my name on groups.google.com, but there were a lot more things that he was proud of. He didn't necessarily understand them, but he could see that they were well received.
      I guess my dad's going to find out that I'm a gay, monster-truck driving Air Force General. I wonder what'll shock him the most. It must just be another of the 'benefits' having a common name. -sk (Michael|Mike Ryan)
    12. Re:That darn Google... by zpengo · · Score: 2
      Yeah, I've got plenty of rants and raves from the days when, for lack of anything better to do, I used to complain about Mormons (since there were a lot of them in my community).

      Now I *am* Mormon, so naturally it's a bit disconcerting knowing that all those feeble attempts at logical argument made in my uninformed youth are still floating around out there!

      --


      Got Rhinos?
    13. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I *am* Mormon, so naturally it's a bit disconcerting knowing that all those feeble attempts at logical argument made in my uninformed youth are still floating around out there!

      Confronted with your Google past, you may have found that since that time you have put your mind in a "logic straightjacket"!

    14. Re:That darn Google... by zpengo · · Score: 2
      Confronted with your Google past, you may have found that since that time you have put your mind in a "logic straightjacket"!

      Uhhh...huh?

      --


      Got Rhinos?
    15. Re:That darn Google... by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      One can certainly dig up some facinating stuff

      Darn, and I was planning on getting so much done the rest of the month. ;-)

    16. Re:That darn Google... by Manes · · Score: 1

      linux: "Linux is not for users, wait for hurd for something real" (not a direct quote)

      ROTFL!

    17. Re:That darn Google... by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      No doubt. I just went and had a read at a whole bunch of posts from 10-15 years ago in which I was often a real prick [and strangely enough, in which I seem to have more technical/coding prowess than I have now!?!]. There's nothing like humble pie and complete red-eared embarrassment at three in the morning -- embarrassment first at how one was acting, and second at no longer being able to fully understand technical discussions from one's own teenagehood!
      I just tracked down my first Usenet post...it's almost an embarrassment how stiffly formal it was. It's even finished like a letter. The second message is even worse...it includes a fricking snail-mail address.

      It didn't take long to grow out of that phase, though...message #3 has a sig, and message #4 has, along with a zillion email addresses under uiuc.edu, the same "ASCII Apple" that I still use in Usenet posts today.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    18. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally! Check this article in today's NY Daily News about postings John Walker ("the American Taliban") made to usenet starting when he was 14. The columnist used the Google groups to dig up old postings and then mock him for stupid things he said when he was 14...

      http://www.mostnewyork.com/today/News_and_Views/ Be yond_the_City/a-134872.asp

    19. Re:That darn Google... by waitdyahoo.com · · Score: 1

      Wow this brings back some memories.

      I cannot beleive I posted some of the stuff I did back then. I actually have a post saying I was lookng for large ammounts of files for my huge 800 meg of storage.. Now I cringe if one of my drives gets down to 800 meg free.

      Boy I was snot noised know it all back then

      But things never change.. LOL

      I really miss my BBS dyas.

    20. Re:That darn Google... by dcgaber · · Score: 1

      Oh thanks god for that, I just did a quick search and I guess I loved usenet when I was a high school lad, like 10 yrs ago (at least there is proof now when i say I was using the net before there was a GUI web browser). Jeez, how stupid was I. My sig had my home addy on it and I was talking about things that should have not been talked. I need to do a remove of many of those when I get the chance.

      Good thing I do not need a security clearance.

    21. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better idea: post under your real name, and take responsibility for what you post.

    22. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly, some of the newsgroups seem to be missing. In the 80's rec.arts.startrek was the most prolific group in the entire usenet and it absolutely does not exist in its original form (it was eventually broken up).

      Try net.startrek. This was the name of Trekky group before the Great Renaming.

    23. Re:That darn Google... by KernelHappy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This really is a moral dilemma. My first reaction was that google should not allow removal of messages. Then I decided to check the archive for my old posts and wow, I'm really torn.

      As I write this I sit in front of my computer cowering. Any minute now someone I work with and/or respect is bound to call me or IM me a link to some of my earliest posts.

      In all seriousness one of the posts did contain my old telephone number from a small business I ran. Instead of allowing removal, google should allow certain information to be edited out for the sake of security or privacy.

      --
      -- Button up, your ignorance is showing
    24. Re:That darn Google... by symbolic · · Score: 1

      But consider this: how many people, who THEN, were posting their messages within the confines of single, well-targeted discussion group, thought that at some point in the future, anyone with an internet connection could almost effortlessly find those messages.

      It's like going to a cozy restaurant to meet with some friends- it's a public place, but I also think it's a reasonable expectation that noone broadcast your conversations to the entire world.

    25. Re:That darn Google... by eXtro · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is way off. Usenet has always been propagated over the internet as a public discussion forum, anybody can join in and anybody can see what goes on. Your opinions, assistance and even rants are distributed globally to a variety of servers that are out of your control. A closer analogy would be an editorial in the local newspaper. Most likely the topic you're commenting on is only of local interest. There's nothing to stop somebody from cutting it out and placing it in a scrap book. There's nothing preventing a library, even if its in another country, from subscribing to the paper and keeping it in its archives.

    26. Re:That darn Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My logic:

      Some things should stay in the past. Some countries now have clean slate laws for lesser crimes whereby if you were a kid who were caught smoking pot you no longer have to declare it to employers. This is only if you've been clean for ten years, mind you.

      If employers want to do a full background check and see what I wrote when I was 13 that's a bad thing.

      They're my words. I published them publically, but I rebroadcasting them should be up to me.

      The messy bit is when someone quotes you. I haven't read much usenet lately but often responses will quote your entire message below theirs... what gets removed then?

    27. Re:That darn Google... by RealityThreek · · Score: 1

      Umm.. hello. You've always been able to request that your post not be archived. And most archivers respect that. For google not to put that in would be kinda weird.

      --
      :wq
    28. Re:That darn Google... by symbolic · · Score: 1

      Your opinions, assistance and even rants are distributed globally to a variety of servers that are out of your control.

      Yes, but with one BIG difference. Back then, in order to find all the posts from a specific John Q. Public, one would have had to monitor every single newsgroup - something that simply wasn't feasible at the time.

      A closer analogy would be an editorial in the local newspaper. Most likely the topic you're commenting on is only of local interest. There's nothing to stop somebody from cutting it out and placing it in a scrap book. There's nothing preventing a library, even if its in another country, from subscribing to the paper and keeping it in its archives.

      Yes, perhaps a better analogy. But even for those who clip the article and keep it, the exposure of the original author is very limited compared to what has become of usenet, simply because the effort required to retrieve the article isn't insignificant.

  8. I feel younger now :) by lhaeh · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Thats from before I was born.

  9. Hmmmmm.... by GoRK · · Score: 5, Funny

    So that means that this is currently THE first post!

    1. Re:Hmmmmm.... by HMC+CS+Major · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Is it? It certainly has some competition!

    2. Re:Hmmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, check otu teh frist p0st!!! =P

    3. Re:Hmmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Hmmmmm.... by Andreas(R) · · Score: 0

      >So that means that this [google.com] is currently THE first post!

      I was one month old back then!

    5. Re:Hmmmmm.... by darekana · · Score: 3, Funny

      More specifically:
      First Hot Grits Post

      "hot grits (course ground hominy meal, made into a mush usually very thick)"

    6. Re:Hmmmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Is it only me who has a hard time imagining people born in the 80's being able to walk and talk? Imagine that there are people using computers today who weren't even around when the C-64 was introduced! Heck, a person born at the same time as the Amiga was born would be 17 years old today!! Damn, I feel old.

    7. Re:Hmmmmm.... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stop, you're scaring me. It always gives me a bit of a shock when I'm talking to someone and ask them "Remember when the first Star Wars movie came out" and they say "dude, I was born in 1980".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    8. Re:Hmmmmm.... by SparkyMartin · · Score: 1

      Well I dated a girl in the mid 90's for awile and it kinda freaked me out when it dawned on me that she was born AFTER the theatrical release of Star Wars-I was 9 when I saw it. Now I'm into older women.

    9. Re:Hmmmmm.... by glwillia · · Score: 1

      Is it only me who has a hard time imagining people born in the 80's being able to walk and talk? Imagine that there are people using computers today who weren't even around when the C-64 was introduced! Heck, a person born at the same time as the Amiga was born would be 17 years old today!! Damn, I feel old.

      Well, I was born in 1980 and I have a hard time imagining people born much later than me walking/talking/driving/etc. I have a lot of memories from 1985-86 on (Challenger, kindergarten on up, our family vacation to TX, our first PC--running DOS 2.1), and now I'm thinking that people born then can now legally drive.

  10. Nostalgia by Lunastorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's nice to browse through the archives and read my various posts over the years. How I've grown. :)

    It should be noted that not all groups are archived. I recently checked out one of my favorites and after the name of it, it said (This group is no longer archived). That's a shame, because I would love to read the older stories of alt.sex.stories.

    I wish that one can access the Google Groups through a news reader such as Pan, because I really don't like the interface Google provides, and one reallly can't change any of their account settings for posting. I was hoping these things would be fixed in beta, but I guess it's OK as it is.

    --
    You die too easily.
    1. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      needed that laugh. studying for finalsfdgfg

    2. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dunno how long back this archive goes and it's for the moderated group of alt.sex.stories but
      assm.asstr.org

    3. Re:Nostalgia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's understandable that alt.sex.stories is not being archived. Some of it was out and out Pedophilia. Would hate to see Google raided by the feds!

  11. What the Timeline Missed... by jackal! · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's a neat timeline, but what it's missing that I'd love to see:

    First Spam

    First Metoo

    First Flamewar

    First MLM/chain letter

    You know, the really important historical stuff.

    --

    Who moderates the meta-moderators?

    1. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by Zagadka · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pay attention. There's a link to "First mass spamming (Green Card spam)" right there on the timeline page.

    2. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by wdr1 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I wonder what happened to some of the older spam. I was trying to find *any* of the original Green Card Lawyers posting with no luck. (Found many responses, forwards, etc., but not the actual posts.)

      Anyone else have any better luck?

      -Bill

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    3. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by Phexro · · Score: 2

      how about this one; the very first usenet posting of the MAKE.MONEY.FAST pyramid-scam.

    4. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Here is a link to the first "me too".

    5. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by Cam+Wheeler · · Score: 1

      First Spam
      -
      http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2odj9q%2425 q% 40herald.indirect.com

    6. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      Plus of course the ones which have been removed at the request of the American police/government etc, if Cryptome is to be believed.

    7. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by crayz · · Score: 1

      Dave Rhodes - your ass is grass.

    8. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by hawk · · Score: 2
      > First Metoo


      really? I assumed that that was whsat the first mention of AOL was about . . .


      :)
      hawk

    9. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by frankie · · Score: 2

      Although it was certainly the first commercial robo-spam, and arguably the most important, Green Card Lottery was not the first robo-spam on Usenet.

      That "honor" goes to Zumabot. Sadly, I couldn't find of Serdar's actual turkey rants in Google.

    10. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by Gannoc · · Score: 2
      First Spam

      That actually would be quite funny.

      "Huh? Make money fast??? PLONK!"
      "Yeah! PLONK! Thank God we won't see any more of that kind of stuff anymore."

    11. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by dallen · · Score: 1
      How about the first mention of spam in the sense of "mass emailing"? The earliest I could find was:

      March 12 1994

      Which could be, for all I know, the very first mention of it on usenet. This was a month before the Green Card Lottery spam, which did get called "spam", and which probably did a lot to improve the word's popularity.

      Before that, I found a number of references to "spam" as a lunch meat, generic placeholder word like foo and bar, host name or user name, or Monty Python reference, but none that have to do with mass posting. Could this be the first?

    12. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by schnitzi · · Score: 1

      First use of the phrase "cow orker" -- May of 1989:

      http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1070%40midg ar d.Midgard.MN.ORG&output=gplain

      --



      I object to that article, and to the next reply.
    13. Re:What the Timeline Missed... by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1

      First pr0n ad!

  12. Re:Early post for Adequacy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather scratch my ass and smell my fingers.

  13. If you doubt this is worthwhile... by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Remember when alt.sexy.bald.captains still had Star Trek in it?? These days, it's all alt, sexy, and probably bald - but that's about it :(

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
  14. Awesome by goldid · · Score: 1

    there's nothing deep in this comment, but I just want to mention how awesome this collection is. I was going to be thoroughly impressed with an archive back to 1990. Thank you, Google. Man, I wasn't even born when this archive started.

    It's great to trace this stuff. Now people can write their disserations with this as a superb trail of thoughts and ideas.

    1. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are old. I had to scrape placenta off my fingers to use the mouse.

      Waaa. -BaByy!

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You weren't born when some of this stuff (circa 1981) was posted? Like, you were not even there when John Lennon was shot, when McCarthney brought out "Band on the run", when...

      You never knew the "joys" of working on a 4K RAM TRS-80 model 1 (or even on a KIM-1)???

      Arrrghh. I feel sooooo old now. No wonder you guys talk about "retro 70s" or, worse, "retro 80s" -- hey, it ain't that old, it was just yesterday!

  15. I hope this is like old Deja by Quebst · · Score: 1

    I loved Deja. It had so many memories. The first time I installed linux I found all the answers to my questions in the archives. It's amazing how the entire usenet(which is a great part of the Internet) goes unnoticed by most people. Maybe this will help some people new to the net find their answers, without attracting even more usenet spam.

    1. Re:I hope this is like old Deja by Matpalm · · Score: 1

      i was pretty upset when google bought the deja archives and then decided to take the bulk of it offline with the promise of "it's all coming back soon"

      that was like over a year ago. it's taken them long enough to put it back up again...

  16. Kinda cool by bryan1945 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Younger folks probably won't find this too interesting as it will be more like history to them rather than us old farts re-living younger days...

    I went to the Google link where they have a list of firsts:

    First mention of Microsoft; not even the oldest post!
    IBM PC.
    CDs, in 1982! Shit, now I realize how old I am!
    C64, Lisa and Mac, AIDS (a purely homosexual disease?!?!- really weird 'cause I just found an old copy of Discover magazine that had a first mention of AIDS; blew me away due to difference in info we know now)

    I love the "WorldWideWeb - Executive Summary" link under the Google link:

    A bit of the text-
    "
    Making a web is as simple as writing a few SGML files which point to your existing data. Making it public involves running the FTP or HTTP daemon, and making at least one link into your web from another. In fact, any file available by anonymous FTP can be immediately linked into a web. The very small start-up effort is designed to allow small contributions. At the other end of the scale, large information providers may provide an HTTP server with full text or keyword indexing.

    The WWW model gets over the frustrating incompatibilities of data format between suppliers and reader by allowing negotiation of format between a smart browser and a smart server. This should provide a basis for extension into
    multimedia, and allow those who share application standards to make full use of them across the web.

    This summary does not describe the many exciting possibilities opened up by the WWW project, such as efficient document caching. the reduction of redundant out-of-date copies, and the use of knowledge daemons. There is more information in the online project documentation, including some background on hypertext and many technical notes.

    Try it
    "

    SGML! Does anyone remember this! "Try it" indeed! Wow, when I thought Usenet was the shit... hehehe!

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:Kinda cool by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Just wanted to mention this after reading my post- I am not blasting gay people at all- it's just that back then AIDS really was first thought of as a "gay only" disease.

      Also- you folks who weren't born at the time beginning of this archive... bah! You try and debug assembler!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    2. Re:Kinda cool by Rentar · · Score: 2
      Younger folks probably won't find this too interesting as it will be more like history to them rather than us old farts re-living younger days...

      Well, I think I'm more into the "younger folks"-category (although, when I look at the age of some dot-com-millionaires I think I might not; at least I was alive, before the first post ;-) but I still find this quite interesting. Especially reading the Linus vs. Tanenbaum dispute (which I already read before, but not in the google-view, which I got used to for up-to-date infos ;-), or the problems in the First Post (tm). They are quite fascinating. And I allways knew that Usenet is much older than "the Internet" but this is something else, you get to feel that this is an old beast (in web-years only, of course).

    3. Re:Kinda cool by Sabalon · · Score: 2

      Yup...originally it was named GIDS I think...the G was for gay. When more was learned it was renamed.

    4. Re:Kinda cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was GRID - Gay Related Immune Disorder.

      Then later it was the 4H disease - Haitians, Hemopheliacs, Heroin addicts, and Homosexuals.

    5. Re:Kinda cool by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of GRID, for Gay-Related Immune Disease (or maybe Disorder.)

    6. Re:Kinda cool by jdaily · · Score: 1

      Don't forget when it was named (nicknamed?) "gay cancer".

      And the band played on...

    7. Re:Kinda cool by bmoyles · · Score: 1

      GRID - Gay Related Immune Deficiency

    8. Re:Kinda cool by DrMaurer · · Score: 1

      Original Name:

      GRIDS

      Gay Related Immunity Deficiency Syndrome

      --
      Dan
    9. Re:Kinda cool by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Okay...so I have CRS - Can't remember shit. Thanks for the corrections.

    10. Re:Kinda cool by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      To AC or not to AC? Oh, well, I can take the hit...

      C64, Lisa and Mac, AIDS (a purely homosexual disease?!?!- really weird 'cause I just found an old copy of Discover magazine that had a first mention of AIDS; blew me away due to difference in info we know now)

      Change the word from "purely" to "primarily" and you've just about hit the nail on the head, even right now. So the author wasn't that far off (not that I'm exactly defending him), and it's really, really easy to see why people thought that initially.

      What bothers me, though, is that we've done a complete about-face on this. It seems, when I was in my 7th-12th year, all our sex education classes told us that this was an "equal opportunity" (or some other nauseatingly misapplied phrase) disease. Until recently, I thought that more heterosexual people had it. (Wrong - dead wrong.) The problem with this political correctness is that we're not allowed to contain the disease like we would every other epidemic: identification and of at-risk groups ("No way! That's anti-homosexual!"), some sort of isolation of those individuals tested positive ("No way! I have a right to have sex!"), shutting down operations that deal in high-risk activities (we already tried it with gay sex clubs, but they put up such a civil rights stink that it never went anywhere), and so on.

      That's right, kids - our concern for appearing to give everyone a fair shake is going to keep this epidemic around much, much longer than it has to be. I wonder if our civil rights heroes of the past would approve...

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    11. Re:Kinda cool by prizog · · Score: 2

      "Until recently, I thought that more heterosexual people had it. (Wrong - dead wrong.)"

      Look at these stats:
      http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
      Total cases: 774,467
      Men who have sex with men 355,409

      And that's in the US... In places like africa:
      http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

      Notice in sub-saharan africa, heterosexual sex is the primary cause of transmission. They also have more AIDS cases than the rest of the world put together.

    12. Re:Kinda cool by MadAhab · · Score: 2
      Whatever.

      Aside from your refreshing unconcern for risk, freedom, or due process, and refreshing appreciation for Stalinist oppression, one might draw exactly the opposite conclusion from your given facts; AIDS has remained largely the province of those who insist on engaging in risky behaviors, and has not spread into the general populace because of education and prevention efforts.

      Still think it's a gay disease? Go get a map of the world and look for a really big place called "Africa". There, lack of education and a refusal by many heterosexuals to stop certain risky behaviors has turned AIDS into the epidemic that didn't happen here.

      The reason more heterosexual people here don't have it is that many of the ones who got it are dead.

      --
      Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
    13. Re:Kinda cool by Jburkholder · · Score: 1

      >Still think it's a gay disease

      Ok, here goes my daily OT-sure-to-get-me-modded-down-but-I'm-at-the-cap-a nyway post:

      No, it is a disease of the uninformed, uneducated and otherwise hopelessly ignorant

      About 21,000 cases of child rape were reported to the police in the past year, most committed by male relatives of the victims.
      The attacks are fuelled by the myth that sex with a virgin will protect a man against AIDS or even cure him of the incurable disease.

    14. Re:Kinda cool by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Sorry you didn't read my self-reply.

      I noticed that I was unclear in my AIDS statement- in the Discover article I uncovered their was a brief description of "a new homosexual disease" that recently popped up. This was before they even had a name for it.

      I had no intention of commenting on the disease today, just how it was represented in a popular science magazine back in 1984 (or so, I forget).

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    15. Re:Kinda cool by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      First, I' not sure how you read all of your statements into what I wrote.

      Second, I'm sorry you didn't read my self-reply, and that I didn't elaborate better in my first post.

      After I wrote my first post, I noticed that I was unclear in my AIDS statement- in the Discover article I uncovered their was a brief description of "a new homosexual disease" that recently popped up (back then, early '80s). This was before they even had a name for it. It was described as a purely homosexual disease because at that point it had only been found in homosexuals.

      I had no intention of commenting on the disease today, any of the social ramifications of the disease, or anything to do with the transmission of the disease, only just how it was represented in a popular science magazine back in 1984 (or so, I forget), and how we now know so much more. Something like reading about cancer in the early 1900s, maybe.

      Sorry I didn't make the above clear.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    16. Re:Kinda cool by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Because I'm getting bashed by being misunderstood about what I wrote, please take a second and look at my reply to the parent of your post.

      Thanks

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    17. Re:Kinda cool by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry you didn't read my self-reply, and that I didn't elaborate better in my first post.

      After I wrote my first post, I noticed that I was unclear in my AIDS statement- in the Discover article I uncovered their was a brief description of "a new homosexual disease" that recently popped up (back then, early '80s). This was before they even had a name for it. It was described as a purely homosexual disease because at that point it had only been found in homosexuals.

      I had no intention of commenting on the disease today, any of the social ramifications of the disease, or anything to do with the transmission of the disease, only just how it was represented in a popular science magazine back in 1984 (or so, I forget), and how we now know so much more. Something like reading about cancer in the early 1900s, maybe.

      Sorry I didn't make the above clear.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  17. Milestones on the page by twilight30 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Anyone notice the milestones listed on the page? I was quite charmed by the 'Stallman announces GNU' post -- mostly by the fact that like Torvalds on Linux, his tone is very modest (well, unlike what morphed later-- speaking in comparative terms only).

    Anyway.

    --
    ========================================
    Death will come, and will have your eyes
    -- Pavese
    1. Re:Milestones on the page by __past__ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Anyone notice the milestones listed on the page? I was quite charmed by the 'Stallman announces GNU' post

      Reading this post, I was more impressed by another point:

      To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus... [Stallman, 1983]

      Then, in Linus' announcement (eight years later):

      I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows) [Torvalds, 1991]

      Some things will never change. When do they play to release the Hurd again?

  18. Disaster waiting to happen by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny
    Just imagine if someone creates alt.history.usenet_archive that would contain the archive of all usenet messages (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive ...)))) ...

    Good thing Google made a Usenet archive without using a news server !

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just imagine if someone creates alt.history.usenet_archive that would contain the archive of all usenet messages (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive ...)))) ...

      There's an easy solution: just create an archive of all archives that do not contain themselves. Oh wait ... stupid set theory.

      Cheers,
      IT

      --

      Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    2. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      Just imagine if someone creates alt.history.usenet_archive that would contain the archive of all usenet messages (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive ...)))) ...

      In the future, we will look up old usenet postings in Godel's library catalog.

    3. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by Nikau · · Score: 1
      --
      There is no escape from The Muffin.
    4. Re:Disaster waiting to happen by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Just imagine if someone creates alt.history.usenet_archive that would contain the archive of all usenet messages (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive, (including alt.history.usenet_archive ...)))) ...
      >
      > In the future, we will look up old usenet postings in Godel's library catalog.

      Who was it that said something along the lines of "For every silly idea, crackpot theory, or oddball sexual kink, there exists at least one adherent. Proof by example is left to USENET."

      (Regrettably, I can't find the original quotation.)

      "USENET is Frosty the Snowman committing suicide with a flamethrower" - Kibo.

  19. well, I just submitted this, soo.... by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since my article submission is doomed for rejection, let me at least post some of extra stuff I had mentioned. First, check out the monolithic kernel debate between Andy and Linus for yourself. Second, in my article submission about Google, I also mentioned that Alexa now archives the Web, too. Try their Internet Archive Wayback Machine. I found they had an archive of my old WEBsurf magazine from 1997. Hilarious.

    1. Re:well, I just submitted this, soo.... by swoopx · · Score: 1

      check out the first comp.lang.c post (it was net.lang.c till 86) net.lang.c

  20. Just looked up to see how far back I posted by firewort · · Score: 2

    So, I did what any person does-
    I went and searched on my name and now defunct emails to see how far back I go, how complete their records are, and what an idiot I was when I posted newbie questions on Caldera OpenLinux 2, apparently after having given up on RH 3x.

    At least I learned my lesson. There also appear to be a few stray posts I made about BeOS, and trying to sell an old BMW.

    If this is all I have to worry about staying on the internet forever, I think I'll be okay.

    --

    1. Re:Just looked up to see how far back I posted by NickV · · Score: 1

      You know, I did the same exact thing after you mentioned it and it really dawned on me. I was so MUCH smarter and cooler back when I was 16 (1996) then today, it just ended up depressing me.

      And man, it seems like I worshipped Duke Nukem 3D back then.

    2. Re:Just looked up to see how far back I posted by Erik+Fish · · Score: 1


      And man, it seems like I worshipped Duke Nukem 3D back then.


      Hey, who didn't?

  21. Wow by jpatters · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I can browse all of my anti-Mac rantings from the comfort of my Powerbook G4.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    1. Re:Wow by Sivax256 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This comes within half a month of covering my whole life. That I think is very cool now I can go back when I am 90 years old and see what went on 15 days after i was born.

    2. Re:Wow by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      This comes within half a month of covering my whole life.

      Ok, I demand a new moderation category - "Makes me feel old".

      32 days until my 32nd birthday...think I'll have to have a "100000th birthday" party. (A 040th wouldn't be very interesting, nor a 0x20th.)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've known it for quite some time.

  22. Good news... by the_furies · · Score: 0

    ...for Marc Collins-Rector, Chad Shackley, and Brock Pierce: now they can download all that kiddie porn on those defunct pedophile newsgroups. Gives new meaning to the term "Digital Entertainment Network!"

  23. *news*groups? by xcomputer_man · · Score: 1

    Looking at these historical posts with great interest, I couldn't help noticing that Usenet used to be primarily a news medium--they were actually news groups where you could find news, but today it hardly fills that role. It would be interesting to see how along the way newsgroups involved more into a forum/discussion group role. Nowadays the last place I'd go to find news would be a newsgroup :)

    I also wonder how sites like Slashdot have negatively impacted the level of newsgroup usage. I imagine that with more and more Slashdotlike sites springing about, there must be less people using newsgroups to vent opinions and stuff. Especially since Slashdotlike sites typically perform the task of actually delivering news (don't want to get deep here)

    --

    1. Re:*news*groups? by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Think about this-

      back then, there was nearly zero, and I mean ZERO, apam! The term off topic wasn't even invented as far as I can remember.

      /. had nothing to do with this by itself- the invention of the web as a whole religated usenet into a smaller niche. Once you could add pretty graphics and pictures, the whole text medium was on the decline.

      And forget news, you could find interesting and non-stupid content as well as news. I used to love reading alt.talk.bizarre, as it was different & weird & (again) non-stupid, but I have no idea what it is like now since I haven't been there in about 5-6 years. Probably 90% spam at this point.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    2. Re:*news*groups? by mpe · · Score: 2

      back then, there was nearly zero, and I mean ZERO, apam! The term off topic wasn't even invented as far as I can remember.

      Also you would rarely, if ever, see upside down followups.

    3. Re:*news*groups? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Forgot to hit that "no +1 bonus" button. Sorry.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  24. This is cool by shd99004 · · Score: 1

    Some very interesting computer history to check out. "Oldest post in the archive", "First mention of Microsoft" etc., very cool.

    --
    Will work for bandwidth
    1. Re:This is cool by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      Some very interesting computer history to check out. "Oldest post in the archive", "First mention of Microsoft" etc., very cool.

      Gene Spafford's farewell to usenet reprints his famous description and fairly characterizes the current state of things:

      "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
      massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
      source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect
      it." --spaf (1992)

  25. A few they forgot to list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google put up a nice listing of firsts in the archive. Here are a few they left out:

    The first occurrence of the word "fuck" (June 05, 1981) :

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=anews.Aucbv ax .1529&output=gplain

    The first occurrence of "Osama bin Laden" (February 20, 1994) :

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9402202031. AA 19205%40diana.cair.du.edu&output=gplain

    The first occurrence of "goatse" (March 20, 1999) :

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36F4273F.9F 6B FEF1%40forfree.at&output=gplain

  26. Straight to the point by squaretorus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't you love Google? This item took some decent reseach, holds genuine interest for many of us, is presented in a light format with no banner ads and is actually interesting.

    If only Google could take over the WWW as well as usenet we'd all be better off!

    1. Re:Straight to the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude, are you, like some kinda kommie?

    2. Re:Straight to the point by matp · · Score: 1

      I agree, well done Google. They were totally berated for their lack of concern for the internet community when they took it off line. Credit where credit's due, they've pulled it back from the brink. I, as I'm sure many others do, find usenet archives absolutely invaluable.

    3. Re:Straight to the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      when they took it off line.

      huh? Google never took usenet (I assume deja is your reference) nor any part of it offline.

      They SAVED the deja archives and now have built a larger archive than deja ever had!

  27. 340 messages about me? by Vespillo · · Score: 1

    well, not excatlly, but excuse me for having a big head ;p

    --
    The problem as I see it is that I have no personality of my own.
  28. oh how i love nuclear history by Sivax256 · · Score: 1

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=nuclear+weapons+ lost+greenland&hl=en&rnum=2&selm=4eitaj%24o2p%40vo dka.intele.net

    It is really good to hear that 50 miles from my house here is a lost nuclear sitting under a few feet of water slowly releasing radiation.

  29. for nostalgia's sake... by red_crayon · · Score: 1

    how many of us looked up our first-ever post, or the first flamewar we lurked at?

    Ahhh, those halycon days of USENET.

    --
    "Never bullshit a bullshitter" All That Jazz
  30. Usenet older than that by shd99004 · · Score: 1

    Usenet was established in 1979, and I wonder if it's even possible to find those first messages made back then? That would be some interesting reading, in a way.

    --
    Will work for bandwidth
  31. Lesseee Here! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Every post from alt.pave.the.earth
    and
    alt.culture.electric-midget

    This is the stuff that really bears the test of time! Not to metion the great AOL flood of 1995, and the annual rites of September.

    What else? 20 years of tjames and kibo.

    1.1 Why pave the earth?

    There are several advantages of a paved Earth over a non-paved Earth, the only really important one is the ease of driving though. Today roads are narrow, you have to turn, and most governments frown at ground travel over Mach1. With endless blacktop in every direction, there will be no restriction to your movement, and rocket powered hypercars will whiz in all directions. We will be able to amuse ourselves with endless driving at incredible speeds while drinking beer and eating wonderfully juicy burgers.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Lesseee Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow that brings back memories, I used to post on to that group and hadn't thought about it in years!

    2. Re:Lesseee Here! by Splork · · Score: 2

      aarghk! the AOL scum invasion! That did -not- need to be read again. yuck.

  32. FidoNet Archive? by tinla · · Score: 2

    When I searched Deja a few years ago I found a lot of very, very old posts I made to FidoNet "echos" before I had Internet connectivity. These were a serious blast from the past... right back to my childhood.

    Back then nobody I knew had access to "the internet", although a few people could get limited janet access (a Uk academic network), and I'd love to reread some of them.

    These posts don't seem to be on google. Does anyone know if they're lost forever or hanging around somewhere?

    Thanks.

    --
    0daymeme.com: Great stuff.
    1. Re:FidoNet Archive? by XJoshX · · Score: 1

      Oh man.. Those were the days.. Fidonet was better than any other "online communities" I've ever been on.

    2. Re:FidoNet Archive? by k2r · · Score: 1

      And we invented the flame-wars!

      IIRC I was 2:245/8.22. This was before the fido-classic / lite war started in Germany.

    3. Re:FidoNet Archive? by Stonehead · · Score: 2

      There! I was wondering for the same. I'm only 21, but seven years ago that's where I was - the local Dutch echos of FidoNet, and Fido-alike networks. First, I was a 'point' (iirc, for example the 1 in 2:212/3.1 ) and I used the DOS-program BlueWave to receive the newest echo packets, creating my own messages and sending them to the world via my phone line. A friend of mine had a BBS (he would have been 2:212/3) where I called in. He had "Remote Access" running (he always called it RA), with a cracked copy of FastEcho 1.30 ordering the mail for every point. The BBS synchronized itself with the rest of the network by calling to a hub every night, etc. As I became tired of BlueWave, I installed FastEcho (the mailsorter), GoldEd (a mailer, TimEd was also nice) and Terminate 3.0 (the calling program, something shareware like Telix.. The only thing I remember about it was that it was coded by a Dane and it had copyright notices *everywhere*. Of course I ran the cracked version.) Ahhh, history..
      Now I read e-mail instead of 'netmail'. I'm using Pine instead of GoldEd. I tend to think that GoldEd was better than pine. I want [->] as "Next Message" again in 'full message view' format. No, that's not the same as pine's arrow-mode.. tin, pan, whatever.. golded is the way I'd want to read newsgroups. Maybe I should check out goldedplus. It's even a Debian package. But it looks not too easy to set up.

    4. Re:FidoNet Archive? by Stonehead · · Score: 2

      Hm, now I told a big story and I didn't answer your question.. :)
      In Fidonet, there weren't such things as 'archiving all discussions'. In 1990 that would cost way too much hard disk space. I really wonder how Google did this: some mad freak must still have archived a lot. Is there a submit page somewhere on Google? Maybe someone else has relevant archives of FidoNet echos.. strange idea that you might even get money for keeping those backups around.. :)
      The only chance that those messages are saved is that someone - a point, BBS, hub, whatever - made copies of these public posts and wants to submit them to Google. If that 'academic network' of yours wasn't part of FidoNet, that chance is even smaller.

    5. Re:FidoNet Archive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      some mad freak must still have archived a lot.

      Goddamn!

      I was drinking coffee and reading that (and picturing what such a mad freak might look like) almost made me spill hot coffee out of my nose.

    6. Re:FidoNet Archive? by juju2112 · · Score: 2

      Hmm..there does appear to be at least some Fidonet postings archived.

      http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=fidone t

    7. Re:FidoNet Archive? by Ambient+Sheep · · Score: 1
      I was a user, then a point on Fido in the UK from about 1991 to 1994 or so. I took a wide variety of echoes and archived the lot. I should still have them on the 500MB Conner in my old 486DX/33 in the corner (plus some were ZIPped onto floppy to save space). The early ones will be in .OLX (Offline Express) format, the later ones in PPoint database format (pre V2.00).

      Being in the UK they're nearly all Region 25 echoes (most notably COMMON_ROOM and READING_ROOM), although there was the odd transatlantic one (e.g. WHO, moderated by Steve Quarrella if I remember correctly). Nevertheless, anyone interested? (I've been meaning to run up the old box and transfer that stuff over to this machine for ages.)

      Hardly any of the ones listed under Google's fidonet are familar.

      Macphee, the Mackie, Liz Currell, where are ye all now, to mention but a few?

    8. Re:FidoNet Archive? by godless · · Score: 0

      Here seems to be something on the works:

      The FidoNet Showcase Project

    9. Re:FidoNet Archive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please post the gzipped files on a website! any archived fidonet resources would be great.

  33. Actually, 9 days earlier... by nsample · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, this is the first post. It's *9* days older! =)

    1. Re:Actually, 9 days earlier... by GoRK · · Score: 2

      Hmm kind of makes you wonder about Google's search results....... They couldn't even find the right first post!

  34. A trip down Slashdot memory lane by IntelliTubbie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It appears that this is the first message mentioning slashdot.org.

    This one is the first post by Rob Malda.

    First mention of Jeff "Hemos" Bates.

    First mention of CowboyNeal (is it the same guy?).

    Awww, you guys...

    Cheers,
    IT

    --

    Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

    1. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malda could spell back then! *Swoons.*
      Err, nevermind: "If you could, please CC me the reply- this group is aa zoon sometiumes. Can't even ehre myself think ;)". Rob, did you ever get hardware support for OpenGL in Windows NT 4? (Eek.)

    2. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by benh57 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot.com was mentioned before that. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=slashdot&start=3 %200&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=17&as_minm= 5&a%20s_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=19 97&rnu%20m=33&selm=5cr9je%24j2i%40mirrors.cellnet. com

    4. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by woggo · · Score: 2


      Heh. I thought they were from Holland, Michigan, not Holland proper.
      </humor>

    5. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by mo · · Score: 1

      Slashdot used to be called Chips n Dips.
      It was a part of Rob Malda's personal web page.
      I couldn't find any posts mentioning it though.

    6. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by Ojing+Eo · · Score: 1


      First slashot hit I found: 1997/01/30


      Ojing

    7. Re:A trip down Slashdot memory lane by Cy+Guy · · Score: 2
      First slashot hit I found [google.com]: 1997/01/30
      email:(please put both our addresses in the header)
      Sarah sarahk@whoever.com
      Chris atdash@slashdot.com


      You'll notice though that is a .COM address, not slashdot.org

      As to historic posts relevant to SlashDot, I think this one is pretty important. In it John Norcross castigates Taco for running Ray Trace on Windows when he should really be running it under OS/2 or Linux. Then there are no other posts from Taco for 3-1/2 months after which he posts this saying how he is booting Linux from a floppy trying out a couple different kernels.

      So thank you John Norcross for setting Rob Malda down the path to Open Source nirvana!
  35. Nowhere to run to baby by meehawl · · Score: 1

    Nowhere to hide.

    My God, it's full of posts!

    They have me back to 1988. Thankfully, pre-1988 don't seem to have propagated to whatever unholy archive these came from.

    --

    Da Blog
    1. Re:Nowhere to run to baby by MisterBlister · · Score: 1
      They have me in 1990...

      Man, I used to be such an idiot...Oh wait, I still am..nevermind.

    2. Re:Nowhere to run to baby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have me from HELO

    3. Re:Nowhere to run to baby by crayz · · Score: 1

      Oh God that was bad. Still got a laugh out of me though.

    4. Re:Nowhere to run to baby by hearingaid · · Score: 2

      I think I started posting in October of '91. That's what I always thought and the first post I could find was October 2nd, 1991.

      Counting this one, though, they seem to have 10 email addresses with posts from me. I think I tracked back all the old VAX accounts I had in my undergrad that I posted from. (I used to sign up for CS courses a lot to get accounts. :)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  36. first mention of slashdot by Vespillo · · Score: 1

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=slashdot&start=3 0&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=17&as_minm=5&a s_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=12&as_maxy=1997&rnu m=33&selm=5cr9je%24j2i%40mirrors.cellnet.com

    it is just in an e-mail address, but first is first.

    --
    The problem as I see it is that I have no personality of my own.
    1. Re:First mention of slashdot by jonearth · · Score: 1
    2. Re:First mention of slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong /. . /. didn't always used to be http:///..com (but rather http:///..org)

  37. Frightening look back by bildstorm · · Score: 2

    Back before I realised anybody actually archived this stuff, man did I make a bunch of stupid posts.


    Do a search for "Peter Buchy" and you'll find all kinds of weird shit.


    The amusing part I think was in my high-flying "I'm an amazingly spiritual Christian out to save you" phase. Now I'm a far more sedate Christian, but still (as you'll note) a D&D player.

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
    1. Re:Frightening look back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Usenet posts are almost like an open diary. It catalogs your thoughts and feelings and desires.

      It is kind of neat to see what it was like to be us when we we're younger.

  38. Who is OTU ? by n · · Score: 1

    And what does he do in the past?

  39. Is Google losing USENET posts? by Carnage4Life · · Score: 2

    Since Google updated their archive, a search for USENET posts I have made turns up a big fat zero even though this same search pulled up ozens of posts just last week.

    Even more surprising, I looked up a certain newsgroup only to find it contained zero posts when just last week there were several posts available via Google Groups.

    1. Re:Is Google losing USENET posts? by steppin_razor_LA · · Score: 1

      I saw the same thing. I did a search for my name and only saw a few recent postings in the results.

      --
      Evolution: love it or leave it
    2. Re:Is Google losing USENET posts? by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      Try deleting your google cookie. I had the same problem.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    3. Re:Is Google losing USENET posts? by Herbst · · Score: 1

      A somewhat better solution:

      Go to http://www.google.com/preferences and
      select: 'Search for pages written in any language'

      It seems that restricting searches to articles
      posted in particular languages is currently not working. I'm sure they'll fix this soon...

      BTW, Google Groups doesn't have its own
      preferences page (I wish it had), but the cookie
      generated from the preferences page of the main
      site still has an affect on Google Groups
      (at least in terms of language restricts).

  40. Damn, by ThatComputerGuy · · Score: 2

    " I bought the latest computer;
    it came fully loaded.
    It was guaranteed for 90 days,
    but in 30 was outmoded!
    - The Wall Street Journal passed along by Big Red Computer's SCARLETT"

    Back in September 1989... I didn't think my 286 was outmoded back then... of course, I was only 7 at the time, wtf did I know? All I needed was Sopwith, Centipede, and Nyet!

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  41. Historical Importance by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 1

    Hey this is actually very cool - 20 years of postings archived (as long as they're not used against you). Hopefuly google will try as hard as possible to make them more complete; some people were complaining of no alt.binaries groups, and hopefully will archive them (all the legal ones that is) to make a complete data set.

    Hopefully some public body could sponsor google for this service to make sure it doesn't disappear again. I mean apart from the historical bit and the info for us geeks, I don't see how they make money out of it. Maybe buying shares in Google will help them, since we all know its the best.

    1. Re:Historical Importance by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hopefully some public body could sponsor google

      Well, UN is looking for new World Heritage targets to sponsor... ;-)

  42. I bet this will finally be ported to debian in '04 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Redundant
    I want this baby. I am sure for 8k it beats my $45 HP with 16 million colors anyday.

  43. Can Google be declared historic landmark? by Anthony+Boyd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now that Google has a historian's wet-dream of actual writings by actual humans as they experienced historic events, such as the falling of the Berlin wall, what are the odds that someone at some point moves to ensure that this information is preserved? I think Google may be thinking very smart here. Their product could become so important that people might actively try to preserve the company, too.

    1. Re:Can Google be declared historic landmark? by Secret+Coward · · Score: 1
      I think this could become a very lucrative project for Google. Twenty years from now, Exxon may pay a fortune to hide anything with the word Valdez in it. AOL-TimeWarner may shell out big bucks to insert a thread on artists pleading for the DMCA, and a followup on how great the new law has been for them.

      Frankly, I don't like the idea of a single company controlling the archives.

  44. oh, the old days of Microsoft Xenix by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
    Microsoft, please bring xenix back!

    1. Re:oh, the old days of Microsoft Xenix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Microsoft Xenix became SCO UnixWare, which was bought by Caldera, which is migrating SCO users to Linux. So, in an indirect way, we can thank Microsoft for providing us with many new Linux users (and not just the ones who having switched due to frustration with that Windows POS).

  45. Oh god... by tuxlove · · Score: 1

    There's crap in there I posted more than a decade ago. Those were the days... to forget. :) It seems like only yesterday I breathed a sigh of relief when that old stuff disappeared from the archives.

    Just when you thought it was safe.

  46. about pr0n by thopo · · Score: 2, Informative

    it was spelled pr0n back then so that it could not be found by search engines (of all kinds). that was of course when nobody knew about it (unlike today).

    --
    keep it simple.
  47. Kinda cool -- try it by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    Yes, it's history or even completely unkown for most AOL / MSN users. Because dirt is amusing, old and new for the Internet == Porn & Terrorist crowd and sells newspapers, it risks being the first introduction to Usenet for many newbies.

    Now is a chance to point to the useful parts of Usenet and get them to try it. If you want to learn about XML/SGML, Perl, PHP, Java, apiculture and so on, it's the place to look.

    Find some interesting newsgroups. Start with lurking and nettiquette.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  48. Linus - by hatchet · · Score: 2, Funny

    Linus Torvalds has new computer See for yourself here

    1. Re:Linus - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH MY GOD!
      Thats the same computer as I had *faints*

  49. Oldest one by Legion303 · · Score: 4, Funny
    From: bl3003@arpa
    Subject: Booya!
    Date: Jan 01, 1981
    Newsgroups: alt.flame,arpanet.general

    First Post!

    --

    Ah, those were the days.

    -Legion

  50. I'm Gone. by Effugas · · Score: 2

    I'm gone from the archive. Like I was never there.

    effugas@best.com, dankamin@cisco.com, Dan Kaminsky ... I can't find any evidence of my existence on google.

    It's actually somewhat disorienting, like looking at your fingertips and seeing a smooth clear reflection staring back at you...

    --Dan

  51. massive copyright violation by vscjoe · · Score: 0, Interesting
    I find this very offensive and intrusive. Those postings were made in the expectation that they were part of an informal, temporary discussion group, not a permanent archive searchable by anybody and everybody in perpetuity.

    And legally, those postings are not in the public domain and Google has no right to republish them beyond the purpose that their authors originally implicitly gave permission for: temporary distribution on USENET.

    1. Re:massive copyright violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      just because you expected it never to happen doesnt mean it shouldnt or wont happen. how do you know that in 5 years time all our posts on /. wont be archived somewhere? this is the very stuff that *should* be saved, because it gives people in the future a look at how things were by the general popular and not generalized or watered down

    2. Re:massive copyright violation by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
      So, do you expect to make money with the stuff you wrote on the net?

      Usenet is a public network so anything you write there is public. If you don't like people seeing your old posts, well tough luck. Perhaps you should have thought about it before posting.

    3. Re:massive copyright violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Think this guy has something to hide?

    4. Re:massive copyright violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hardly a copyright violation. There's no rule saying a news server's expiration time has to be short. Google is a part of Usenet --- you can read, you can post, it transfers news; it's a usenet node.

    5. Re:massive copyright violation by mpe · · Score: 2

      And legally, those postings are not in the public domain and Google has no right to republish them beyond the purpose that their authors originally implicitly gave permission for: temporary distribution on USENET.

      In which case given that the archive appears to be in the USA it would appear to be trivial for any authors who object to have them taken down. (Or we get proof that the DMCA is only for corporates and thus is voided by the US constitution anyway.)

    6. Re:massive copyright violation by vscjoe · · Score: 1
      So, do you expect to make money with the stuff you wrote on the net?

      No. But I do expect other people not to make money from my postings, and I do expect that people don't engage in massive copyright violation and redistribute large collections of postings with expiration dates of a few weeks after 15 years.

      If you don't like people seeing your old posts, well tough luck. Perhaps you should have thought about it before posting.

      I see. And you apply the same reasoning to all copyrighted works? Microsoft shouldn't publish software if they didn't want people to pirate it?

      Besides, the effect of your kind of attitude is that there is no space for informal discussions on-line without pseudonyms, because everything can be republished. That's a shame, although in 2001 it is enough of a reality that many people are using pseudonyms.

      (In case you were wondering, no, I didn't post anything on USENET I have to be ashamed of. Some of my USENET postings actually got republished as printed articles. But that's not the point.)

    7. Re:massive copyright violation by Lee+Bottemiller · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I find this very offensive and intrusive. Those postings were made in the expectation that they were part of an informal, temporary discussion group, not a permanent archive searchable by anybody and everybody in perpetuity.
      And legally, those postings are not in the public domain and Google has no right to republish them beyond the purpose that their authors originally implicitly gave permission for: temporary distribution on USENET.



      Point #1) You have just blabbed away your right to gripe when the RIAA and MPAA attempt to time-limit your use of "their" copyrighted material.

      Point #2) This very question of the copyright status of public postings has been tried and precedent has been set: Your Usenet posts aren't really copyrighted.

      How do I know? When I wanted my Usenet tracks covered and DejaNews wouldn't comply, the EFF referred me to an attorney who had tried the actual precedent-setting case.

      Suggestion #1) Adjust your expectations of privacy downward.

      Suggestion #2) Adjust them downward once again.

      Suggestion #3) Schedule monthly privacy-expectation adjustment sessions.

      Psycho babble: Your posts are just as much a part of you as the events in your life. Embrace them as part of your humanity. I love you. No USENET post will ever change that.

    8. Re:massive copyright violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Intent matters, not uucp configuration hair-splitting. The intent of USENET is on-line discussion, with an expectation of expiration of a few weeks (some postings actually had explicit expiration dates).

      The corporate Google archive equivalent would be recording and indexing all television shows since 1982 and making them available for free. The TV networks would have a field day with that--it clearly goes beyond fair use. Why do you think individuals should be protected any less?

    9. Re:massive copyright violation by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
      I see. And you apply the same reasoning to all copyrighted works? Microsoft shouldn't publish software if they didn't want people to pirate it?

      I don't see Microsoft publishing their software on a public part of the net.

    10. Re:massive copyright violation by dstone · · Score: 2

      Those postings were made in the expectation that they were part of an informal, temporary discussion group, not a permanent archive searchable by anybody and everybody in perpetuity.

      Were your expectations set by policy or wishful thinking? I've been posting to UseNet since 1990/91 and I've never had a feeling that my comments would cease to exist. Each server in the distributed UseNet has always set its own policies, time horizons, groups to propogate, etc. When you've got thousands of those servers, each with different interests and resources, it's pretty natural to think that some of them would try to keep articles around longer than others.

    11. Re:massive copyright violation by Proteus · · Score: 2

      AFAIK, Google's Groups function is part of USENET -- and there has never been a standard for length of cache on a USENET server.

      I think this is great - so much more information that can be indexed, searched, and relearned without the same old Q&A.

      As for "temporary" -- no data is ever permanent: it's all a matter of perspective. :)

      --
      We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
    12. Re:massive copyright violation by mccalli · · Score: 1
      Think this guy has something to hide?

      No. It's exactly thoughts like this that allow privacy to be eroded.

      Example, do you have anything to hide? No? Well then, you won't mind me setting up a camera trained on your garden, monitoring whatever you do for 24 hours a day and sending that information to me. Same principle - what you are doing would be visible from a public location, so it's in the public domain forever, right?

      What would actually happen if I did that is that you'd become less comfortable using your garden, and what was once a nice place would become a worrying place where you had to be on your guard. OK, so describing Usenet as a 'nice' place might be pushing it, but it does mean that a once useful, informal discussion area would become the a worrying location where you self-censored everything written in case of future use.

      I find it ironic that the many of the people currently saying "yippee! 20 years of Usenet with no ability to delete" would be outraged if the post was about their employer logging everything they typed and storing it forever...

      Cheers,
      Ian

    13. Re:massive copyright violation by vscjoe · · Score: 2
      I've been posting to UseNet since 1990/91 and I've never had a feeling that my comments would cease to exist.

      I never expected that my comments would "cease to exist": of course, there were backup tapes. However, there is a big difference between archiving them on some tape somewhere and republishing a massive database of comments 15 years after the fact.

      None of that has any bearing on the question of copyrights. For example, just because TV networks broadcast stuff and lots of people tape them doesn't mean you can freely redistribute those tapes before the copyright is up.

    14. Re:massive copyright violation by vscjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You have just blabbed away your right to gripe when the RIAA and MPAA attempt to time-limit your use of "their" copyrighted material.

      I don't see why. First, there is a difference between personal use and commercial redistribution. Second, if the RIAA and MPAA rules are the law of the land, I expect Google to play by them as well when it comes to my content.

      This very question of the copyright status of public postings has been tried and precedent has been set: Your Usenet posts aren't really copyrighted.

      Oh? Would you care to share the case law?

      Adjust your expectations of privacy downward.

      I have, as have most other people. But the on-line world is poorer for it, because if every word is "on the record", people either post anonymously or they don't engage in informal discussions. You just can't have informal on-line conversations with friends if everything is recorded.

    15. Re:massive copyright violation by F452 · · Score: 1

      I was also surprised to find my old posts out there, but no one ever promised me they'd disappear.

      What you can do is (1) go to Google and find out how to request the removal of your old posts, and (2) set "X-NO-ARCHIVE" on your future posts (or something like that - Google tells you how to do that also)

      I think the Usenet archives are a fascinating snapshot of history, but I can understand why a lot of people wouldn't want to see their old posts there.

    16. Re:massive copyright violation by hearingaid · · Score: 2
      And legally, those postings are not in the public domain and Google has no right to republish them beyond the purpose that their authors originally implicitly gave permission for: temporary distribution on USENET.

      Many, many Usenet newsgroups have kept permanent archives over the years.

      There's a header field in NNTP: X-No-Archive. It's been around for a long, long time. Google obeys it when it's present.

      Just because you have no clue about Usenet's actual structure doesn't mean Google's not performing a valuable - and valued - service.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    17. Re:massive copyright violation by isorox · · Score: 2

      So I take it I cant keep my personal record of archived posts on certain newsgroups over the past few years because you didnt mean them to be archived.

    18. Re:massive copyright violation by weave · · Score: 2
      There's a header field in NNTP: X-No-Archive. It's been around for a long, long time. Google obeys it when it's present.

      Sonofabitch. You don't say. And when exactly was that first documented?

    19. Re:massive copyright violation by Tassach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. But I do expect other people not to make money from my postings, and I do expect that people don't engage in massive copyright violation and redistribute large collections of postings with expiration dates of a few weeks after 15 years.


      Stop whining. You posted your comments to a PUBLIC forum. The fact that someone has found a way to make money off of a archive of public messages does not give you any kind of legitimate grievance. There's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing if you wanted to. If you really feel so strongly that your copyright has been infringed, put your money where your mouth is and file a copyright infringement suit against Google.

      If you spray-painted a bunch of grafitti around your town, then someone came around and took pictures of it and published a coffee table book of your art, you would have a VERY hard time convincing a court that you were due a cent. While IANAL, I would be suprised if there was not ample precedent saying that by placing your original work in a public forum you are releasing it to the public domain.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    20. Re:massive copyright violation by Glytch · · Score: 2

      If you want a temporary, informal discussion, set up your own SILC server, and ask your friends not to log. Otherwise, quit whining.

    21. Re:massive copyright violation by MioceneMan · · Score: 1

      What are you trying to say?

      You just can't have informal on-line conversations with friends if everything is recorded.

      Google's latest release of old usenet postings had me laughing and hooting like a crazy ape. 1984 was a hell of a year for me. I was a quarter century old, and still a damned idiot.

      Don't walk around with a stick up your butt... I just don't care who is listening in anymore.

      Oh yes, I am a crazy ape.

    22. Re:massive copyright violation by hearingaid · · Score: 2

      At least 1996. I thought longer, but maybe I was wrong. Anyway, this is the earliest reference I could find: a post on Google which quotes all of a post that talks about this header.

      I did find a couple of apparent posts from 1995 that appeared to refer to the header.

      It's not in any RFCs, but there haven't been any Usenet RFCs really since the '80s.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    23. Re:massive copyright violation by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      I know its not perfect, but if you dont want your posts on usenet to show up, you can ask google to take them down.

      Im not sure why one would want to do this, as this archive is a great resource for all kinds of things. Is it better to have it there or not?

    24. Re:massive copyright violation by weave · · Score: 2

      You missed my attempt at sarcasm. Some people are complaining about having all their stuff back to 1981 available and the response was about the x-no-archive header. Well, as you said, it wasn't created until 1995 or so, so people posting before that date have no means or choice on whether to let them live on or not.

    25. Re:massive copyright violation by fiftyfly · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong (I, too, am not a lawyer) but I'm pretty sure, in Canada at least, everything is by default copywrited - you have to _explicitly_ state otherwise.

      --
      "Sanity is not statistical", George Orwell, "1984"
    26. Re:massive copyright violation by hearingaid · · Score: 2

      Except that Google has a take-down link. You can contact them to have your stuff removed.

      Also, there were archives even back in 1981. This isn't new: it's just that the web makes it easier to access.

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

    27. Re:massive copyright violation by weave · · Score: 2
      I didn't know about the take-down link. Thx, but I honestly don't care enough to worry about it. I was just pointing out that x-no-archive is a relatively recent feature. However, even that should not be entrusted to make your stuff disappear.

      Personally, I think this is the coolest thing ever. History will never be the same. To be able to go back and re-live events and discussions is like going back in time. It's incredible.

    28. Re:massive copyright violation by dstone · · Score: 2

      Do you understand that UseNet exists entirely because articles are COPIED from server to server and kept around as long as possible? There's nothing centralized; by the time you read a posted article, it has been COPIED many many many times and exists on many servers simultaneously, for as long as each server cares to keep it around. That might be forever. In any, case UseNet relies on COPYING articles (not propogating them, like e-mail for example). Google Groups is a great place to get UseNet articles from -- it's currently the strongest node for UseNet content and I'm happy about it.

    29. Re:massive copyright violation by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      Ive thought about this for a bit, and I do not think you are right at all.

      When you posted to USENET, you knew that the message you were typing was going to be copied to many many newsgroup servers out there. Im pretty sure when you did post that you didn't get any message that said this post will not be archived.

      So, when you posted a message, it was copied to many many different servers. Back then, did they ask you if it was ok if they did this? No, it was part of the usenet system, and everyone that was using *should* know what is going to happen.

      And anohter thing. Your second sentance "Those postings were made in the expectation that..."

      Maybe your expectation was different then my expectation. Maybe I expected these posts to be here 15 years down the road. What im trying to get at, is its your fault for expecting something that wasn't explicitly said. Do you go to mcdonalds, and when you get your big mac meal, do you bitch because you EXPECTED a 5 star meal?

      Now, when you get into this legality thing. Who said that those posts were part of a TEMPORARY DISTROBUTION? Who defines temporary. Maybe temporary means 30 years, maybe it means 10 seconds. Temporary is a relative term needs some more defining before labelling it as a 'set amount of time'. So, I wonder where you are getting this legally part from. I am not a lawyer myself, but I doubt if you were to say, "I EXPECTED this to be temporary" that would not get far in court.

      This leads me to my last question. What on earth do you not want people to see? You know by asking this, us curious folks are gonna look you up just to see what your trying to hide. Anyway, I feel that you had made some bad assumptions back in the day, and you are mad that your assumptions did not turn out right. I may be wrong in all this, as I was not really posting to usenet until about 1990, so im not sure how they portrayed all this stuff prior to then. I can say when I posted in 1990 I didn't think that usenet would go away, and my posts would just disappear, I EXPECTED them to be there 10 years down the road. And they are =).

      Zeno

    30. Re:massive copyright violation by symbolic · · Score: 1

      What do you think of EULAs that say, "By opening this package, you agree to all the terms and conditions contained herein," without knowing SQUAT about what the terms and conditions say? No one is clairvoyant, and no one posting back in 1984 had even an inkling that the messages they posted would become part of a massive, easily-searchable archive. It's one thing to tell someone the rules first, and then let them decide if they want to participate, but don't change the rules mid-game and expect them to blindly accept it.

    31. Re:massive copyright violation by jurgen · · Score: 1
      While IANAL, I would be suprised if there was not ample precedent saying that by placing your original work in a public forum you are releasing it to the public domain.


      Not the public domain (a concept which has very little legal meaning in the USA anymore), but you're probably granting an implicit license to redistribute without restrictions. As for "expires:" headers, these are not a contract as they've always had merely an "advisory" role in the actual code that runs Netnews.

      As for people complaining about Google making money of their postings... well, Google doesn't, at least not directly. Note that there are no ads on Google Groups. Anyway, you could level the same complaint against web search engines in general... who are they to make money of my homepage?
    32. Re:massive copyright violation by Tassach · · Score: 2

      Yes, in the US everything is copyrighted by default the moment it is created. However, I suspect that publishing your work in an uncontrolled public forum would be considered an explicit relinquishment of your copyright, especially if you did not include an explicit copyright notice to the contrary.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    33. Re:massive copyright violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so when did you stop beating your wife?

    34. Re:massive copyright violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a clue. In 1981, most people on USENET weren't even on the Internet. Were you born yesterday?

  52. Quality literature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Tom Clancy rules!

    I've just finished reading The Debt of Honour, Executive Orders and Rainbow Six and they all kicked ass!

  53. Er, Google Groups :-) by Effugas · · Score: 2

    (Yes, this is the third time I've tried to post this. Damn Slashfilters :-)

    Accusations of ego surfing will be ignored. It's always interesting to see where you came from...

    --Dan

  54. somethings wrong by dfelznic · · Score: 2

    Hey,
    I used to have a bunch of posts on groups.google.com but now none of my old correspondence are there. Wierd, anyone else see themselves as missing?

    1. Re:somethings wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Some stuff that may have been moderated out back in the day (hopefully... ), some that's just not showing up. I think I'll keep checking - there's a few things that never need to see the light of day again... :)

      BTW, check the "Groups Help": you can email google a nuke request for a post of yours; either send it from the same address or copy in the little block of text swearing it's really you...

  55. ok, so how do we delete our posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, as the story says, this can be embarassing for many people. So what's the procedure to delete our old posts from the archive?

    1. Re:ok, so how do we delete our posts? by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You don't.

      What is it with you people? An marvellous and unique archive like this will become completely useless if people like you want to start censoring it.

      Take the responsibility for your posts!

    2. Re:ok, so how do we delete our posts? by dair · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the FAQ, or use the Automatic Removal Tool.

      -dair

    3. Re:ok, so how do we delete our posts? by khuber · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't think deleting your own posts qualifies as censorship.

      P.S. I deleted all that stuff I said about your wife when I was real drunk.

      -Kevin

  56. Hurd is out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hurd is already out! There's a source code tree, ISO discs and GNU/Debian HURD.

    Advantages of the Hurd

    The Hurd is not the most advanced kernel known to the planet (yet), but it does have a number of enticing features:

    It's free software

    Anybody can use, modify, and redistribute it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL).it's compatible The Hurd provides a familiar programming and user environment. For all intents and purposes, the Hurd is a modern Unix-like kernel. The Hurd uses the GNU C Library, whose development closely tracks standards such as ANSI/ISO, BSD, POSIX, Single Unix, SVID, and X/Open.

    It's built to survive

    Unlike other popular kernel software, the Hurd has an object-oriented structure that allows it to evolve without compromising its design. This structure will help the Hurd undergo major redesign and modifications without having to be entirely rewritten.

    It's scalable

    The Hurd implementation is aggressively multithreaded so that it runs efficiently on both single processors and symmetric multiprocessors. The Hurd interfaces are designed to allow transparent network clusters (collectives), although this feature has not yet been implemented.

    It's extensible

    The Hurd is an attractive platform for learning how to become a kernel hacker or for implementing new ideas in kernel technology. Every part of the system is designed to be modified and extended.

    It's stable

    It is possible to develop and test new Hurd kernel components without rebooting the machine (not even accidentally). Running your own kernel components doesn't interfere with other users, and so no special system privileges are required. The mechanism for kernel extensions is secure by design: it is impossible to impose your changes upon other users unless they authorize them or you are the system administrator.

    It exists

    The Hurd is real software that works Right Now. It is not a research project or a proposal. You don't have to wait at all before you can start using and developing it.

  57. MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    base64 is part of MIME from the start of the 90'ties, and wasn't really used on Usenet before mid 90'ties. Before that we used uuencode, however there was very little pr0n back then, and low quality. ASCII art comapred favorable to it. You couldn't upload much with 2400 baud modem.

    We loved it, though!

    1. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by Howie · · Score: 1

      But uuencode still is used for a lot of the pr0n/binaries groups, or so I am told.

      --
      "don't fall into the fallacy of believing that Perl can solve social problems. Maybe Perl 6 can, but that's a ways off"
    2. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "90'ties"? Say "ninetyties" to yourself, and think about how silly that sounds. It's "90's" or maybe "9'ties"... Sigh.

    3. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by secolactico · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound that silly if you consider its pr0n we are talking about.

      --
      No sig
    4. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2
      What are you talking about, 2400 baud modem?? The way to do it was to save (by hand) each part of each picture you were interested to your VM account (mainframe with fat pipe to the internet). Then (by hand) cut and paste them into a single file and then run uudecode on them, and then download them to floppy.

      Later on I found some VM based newsreaders that did all the cutting and pasting for me :)

    5. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by 503 · · Score: 1

      It's "90's" or maybe "9'ties"... Sigh.

      Actually, if you want to be really anal about this, it should be 1990s or '90s. The apostrophe goes at the front to indicate the missing 19. So sayeth The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook [insert choir of angels here].

      I do agree that 90'ties is just silly.

    6. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2400 baud modem?! ... you we're lucky!

      When I was a kid we had a 300 baud acoustic coupler, and boy did those characters appear slowly on the screen!

    7. Re:MIME, PR0N, the good old days. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you were an ASCII pr0n lover, but everyone on the BBSs I was on would sit on their modems and wait for the 100KB pics to download, just like 56Kers wait for hours to download megs of movies. You could queue them and use up your time for the day while you went off and did something else.

  58. There are binaries .... by taniwha · · Score: 2

    even some (of my own) I posted in 1985, now that's scary. And an argument (that I don't remember) from around the same time about what may have been one of the first warez postings

  59. This is evil by __past__ · · Score: 1
    There are so many things in it I would be happy not to know.

    Any opinions on the new Commodore 64 computer. I've seen it and it looks pretty neat.
    ...
    (viii) it uses the same Microsoft BASIC as the PET. They say they will have Pascal for it soon.

    I'm feeling so dirty now. The C64 was the first computer I used.

  60. This goes back to my birthday by otomo_1001 · · Score: 1

    How sweet is that? I look at the date and it is my very own birthday. Do I get a cookie?

    I have alot of reading to catch up on, I didn't start until 1995 or so. :D

    1. Re:This goes back to my birthday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sweet is that? I look at the date and it is my very own birthday. Do I get a cookie?

      Yes, and a pacifier and a change of diapers.

      Oh, you're telling me people born in the 80's can walk, speak, read and write? Damn, when I was young, then...

      ;)

  61. some thoughts about it in comparison to ./ by dario_moreno · · Score: 4, Interesting

    like almost everyone else, I typed my "real name"...and found 293 articles dating back
    to april 1992. Excepted for my most private
    and personal life, you could guess almost
    exactly who I am, what is my career, hobbies
    and so on... On ./, anonymity and disguise
    seem to be more prevalent than on Usenet.

    Amazing also to see that before 1994 or so,
    there were only educated, polite, informative
    people on the face of the earth (and I looked
    like a bad-taught puppy in comparison to them).
    At this point, with AOLers and non-academics
    appearing, something definitely changed.

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    1. Re:some thoughts about it in comparison to ./ by lahi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are almost right, although you are one year off. Before 1993, Usenet tended to get a mass of idiot postings in September. However, September 1993 was the September that never ended. Try searching for "September 1993" AND Usenet.

      Actually, I believe it was bad even earlier than that. In April 1993, Gene Spafford posted this:
      http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=1rpq88 IN Njlk%40ector.cs.purdue.edu&hl=en

      This is IMO one of the best - if also depressing - posts I've seen on Usenet, which I have been using since about 1991. That message for me marks the end of the "good old" Usenet. I'm glad I had the chance to see it live before it vanished.

      -Lasse

    2. Re:some thoughts about it in comparison to ./ by dario_moreno · · Score: 1

      well, your link seems malformed, but
      I think you are referring to the farewell
      message by Spafford (linked
      from the google announce) ?

      And for the 1994 mention...well, things are
      one or two years late here in Europe !

      --
      Google passes Turing test : see my journal
    3. Re:some thoughts about it in comparison to ./ by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      First post I found with my name was in Feb 1984. I didn't post it, someone posted something I wrote and credited it. For the record, it was this parody song.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    4. Re:some thoughts about it in comparison to ./ by edunbar93 · · Score: 2

      Heh. That's because in 1992, spammers didn't mine Usenet for e-mail addresses yet. You know, like they do to slashdot every day now.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  62. Google archives incomplete... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought I'd checkout my own personal foot print on Usenet and what I found was that my Usenet postings don't start showing up in the google cache until ~1990. I started in posting in bulk around 1986-1987... so it looks like google needs to go back and review where they got their archive from. They should probably revisit some of the technical issues involved in news propagation to find out where blackholes could have been created due to uucp propagation issues, Arpanet/Internet transitions, Usenet software upgrades and archive spool locations.

    All said and done, nice try Google, but no cigar.

  63. Wow by Blackneto · · Score: 0

    I have forgotten how many email addys i've had in the past 10 years or so.
    was able to search through old nick's that i used and found about 12.
    While searching I once again realized how lame I truly am.

    --

    --
    Ursula Andress, Catherine Deneuve, and Charo, twice...
  64. !mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko by wirefarm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm surprised that nobody mentioned this one yet.
    Still a favorite of mine:

    USSR on Usenet


    Of course, now nobody thinks twice when they see a Russian address, but back then it was a big deal.
    (To the younger readers: They were the bad guys back then, the "Evil Empire"...)

    And now, let's open a flask of Vodka and have a drink on our entry on
    this network. So:

    NA ZDAROVJE!

    Cheers,
    Jim in Tokyo

    --
    -- My Weblog.
    1. Re:!mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko by Dahan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well the original kremvax (in the post you refer to) was an April Fool's joke... although when the USSR did get on the Internet years later, someone named a machine kremvax in tribute :)

    2. Re:!mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko by wirefarm · · Score: 2

      Drat!
      I was hoping to fool some people who hadn't seen the original!
      Oh, wait... Lots of Russians *are* on the net these days...

      Anyone remember hearing about how the US Customs Service used to fill the cases of USSR-bound Vaxen with concrete? (Shipping such powerful computers there was a no-no back then.)

      --
      -- My Weblog.
    3. Re:!mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko by Detritus · · Score: 2

      I heard a story, many years ago, that a VAX mysteriously disappeared while being shipped on a train in West Germany. Supposedly it later reappeared in East Germany.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:!mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is either fake or the first Russian poster did not know proper Russian spelling (it is not zdarovje but zdorovje.

    5. Re:!mcvax!moskvax!kremvax!chernenko by raduga · · Score: 1
      Since dejagoogle doesn't seem to have this one...

      The first *actual* usenet posting from USSR was in spring of 1990 (possibly May?)

      From Dimitry Volodin (dvv@hq.demos.su) to the talk.politics.soviet group, crossposted to a few other russian culture groups I think. There was quite an involved thread following it, debating whether this was another kremvax hoax, but Dima, and a few others from Demos continued to post, and assert that they were actual, real live people. Their link was 9600 modem, originally dialup, eventually leased line to an EUNET site in Sweden. I did witness the original, and did print it out, but subsequently passed it on to my aunt who lost it. Ah well.

      Anyway the first extant post from .su appears to be google

      If anyone can refine this, would be much appreciated

      --
      First, nothing begins if not opening
  65. IRC by ThePilgrim · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just thank god no one seems to have archived IRC :-)

    --
    Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
    1. Re:IRC by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
      > I just thank god no one seems to have archived IRC :-)

      Coming in 2008... "google.nsa.gov"

    2. Re:IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm happy no-one's archived my ICQ cyber sessions.

    3. Re:IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was at least one .com company trying to do this. I can't remember their name though.

  66. Say thanks by augustz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey Folks,

    A lot of fun and a great job. Christ it's a laugh to look up first mentions of things.

    Why not send a little thanks to google and the folks listed on their page that THEY give thanks to. For the lazy:

    comments@google.com
    bjones@wmhosting.com
    faq-admin@faqs.org
    magi@csd.uwo.ca

    Doesn't take but a few minutes... So go on and drop them a note. Probably matters more than you think :)

    1. Re:Say thanks by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 1
      Done and done.

      What Google has done has restored some of my confidence in the vitality and the future of the net. With all the spam and binaries filling the usenet these days makes the 80s and even early 90s look like golden days netwise.

    2. Re:Say thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious if you've looked back into Usenet in the last couple years. Outside of the *.sex.* and binary groups, the discussion groups are in better shape now than they have been for years.

  67. Gotta love this comment by cmallinson · · Score: 1

    Regarding the C64:

    "At $600 for 64K in the USA, I expect we'll see a lot of these"

    Now I'm going to be up all night reading all 20 years of this!

  68. MOD UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quick, mod the parent up so Karma Sink doesn't go to the negative cap!

  69. Weird reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    or follow-up if you would like to use "tens of thousands of dollars"

    I don't get this reference.

    1. Re:Weird reference by khuber · · Score: 1
      It's Usenet humor. The Unix Pnews posting utility used to give the following ominous warning when you set your distribution to world:

      • "This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.

        Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]"

      -Kevin

    2. Re:Weird reference by burnetd · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it, that message delayed my first posting to USENET by 4 years.

  70. Making it harder? by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Now when I try to search for "getting rid of windows" I'll get information on getting rid of Windows 1.01?

    I found it hard enough reading a huge thread of articles and noticing at the end they were talking about Red Hat 5.3 or something of the such.

    On the other hand... I hope my parents never find this, because I've got lots of d rug posts. I've since changed my mind, but I was younger then (of course) and under their 'rule'

    It sounds cool, but I want to boycott for some odd reason.

    1. Re:Making it harder? by unapersson · · Score: 1

      Just use the advanced search and narrow the search window to select more recent dates.

  71. Other firsts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Natalie Portman post - 1994-08-13 02:09:04 PST:
    Link

    Beowulf cluster - 1994-11-24 04:37:14 PST (should be something earlier though??):
    Link

  72. Oh no... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm not Danny Drucker, but I was about the same age at the same time, and probably posted way too much crap to Usenet back in the day. Having your own UUCP feed was a great toy for someone in high school in the early 90s.

    On one hand, it's great to be able to find old posts. They're good for dick size wars to say "nyah nyah, I've been on the 'net longer than you."

    On the other hand, all of the teenage spewing that has been moderated by time is now back for all to see forever. Let that be a lesson to you kids out there - think before you post.

  73. Napster/Sean Fanning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First instance of Napster is some kid's nick in an IRC log

  74. Linus announces Linux by Console · · Score: 1

    I found this piece from Linus' original posting on comp.os.minix pretty amusing:

    "I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
    out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
    minix."

    So, is there anyone out there who will admit to asking themselves "Why?" because of the Hurd? ;-)

  75. It's very nice to have, all things considered by mareksquonk · · Score: 1

    Those of us who read into the record, as it were, creative stuff, not keeping copies, will find it wonderful to have a chance to recover some. With
    14k posts in Google Groups, I feel on the whole happy to have the chance to be embarrassed by the past... and find things lost poems.

  76. Slashdot archived for historians? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2
    I'm no tech historian, but I have a feeling that History of 20th Century Information Technology will be a big growth field in the humanities. And if in 2020 I had to write a book on, say, the rise and fall of Microsoft, I would love to be able to read all of the insightful comments on Slashdot (especially those by a certain Dr. Spork). So here's my question: Has everything on Slashdot been archived? Who decides what happens to it?

    Another question, while we're at it: It's inevitable that historians will include sometimes extended citations from Google's usenet archives in books they sell (much like Katz did for /.). Is it right that Usenet authors will contribute their ideas without their consent and without compensation from those who profit from their work? Do historians know any precedent in cases like this? I mean, I know that personal correspondence is often quoted by historians, but always after the author is dead (or explicitly gives persmission). I know usenet is not like personal correspondence, but it's not exactly like publishing, either. I'm not a social scientist, so I don't know what protocol applies here, but I'd love to hear about this from someone who does know.

    1. Re:Slashdot archived for historians? by Peter+Dyck · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Is it right that Usenet authors will contribute their ideas without their consent and without compensation from those who profit from their work?

      This is the standard practice in all sciences: information is to be shared freely. I don't see any problem with this. How could I "own" my Usenet posts anymore than I could own a public domain program I released on the net?

      But then again the world seems to be breeding more and more people who wouldn't let other people pick up their dog's feces lest they should profit from it.

    2. Re:Slashdot archived for historians? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2
      Well, wait a minute: If I found that someone was archiving my IRC postings without my permission and later published them, I'd think that some code of conduct was violated. The same goes for my emails (even the unencrypted ones that I know to be interceptible and third-party archivable).

      The analogy of Usenet postings to a "public domain program I released on the net" is flawed. The whole point is that with the latter, you give explicit permission to cite/redistribute. When you don't give that permission I don't have the right to modify/redistribute your program, even if you did post it on the internet. Because the vast majority of usenet postings do not come with an explicit permission to redistribute, I wouldn't think it crazy if they were treated as private communications (which the author does "own"). Not that I think they should be; in my post I was just wondering about whether there is any clear precedent in how to treat this sort of thing.

  77. reality check on moderation by vscjoe · · Score: 1, Troll

    Moderators: someone expressing a different opinion from you is not a "Troll".

  78. My past osama's by deathcow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Advanced google groups search yields Osama from Feb/19/1994

    Text: In The Statement Sent To Several Saudi Newspapers, The Bin
    Laden Family Members Said They Want To Disassociate Themselves
    From Osama Bin Laden.

    Osama Bin Laden Is Believed To Be Living In Sudan And Is Said To
    Have Been A Main Financial Backer Of The So-Called Afghan Arabs.
    They Are Muslim Arabs Who Fought Alongside The Afghan Mujahedin
    Against Soviet Forces In Afghanistan.

    The Bin Laden Statement Was Signed By Bakr Mohamed Bin Laden,
    Osama Bin Laden'S Brother. In Their Statement The Family Said
    All Family Members -- Whose Number Exceeds 50 -- Would Like To
    Express Their Regret, Denunciation, And Condemnation For All Acts
    That Osama Bin Laden May Have Committed, Which, In Their Words,
    We Do Not Condone And Which We Reject.

    Osama Bin Laden Has Been Specially Mentioned In Connection With A
    Group That Has Committed Several Acts Of Violence In Yemen. The
    Bin Laden Family Comes Originally From The Southern Part Of
    Yemen. Some Family Members Emigrated To Saudi Arabia Decades
    Ago. (Signed)

  79. Moded up by augustz · · Score: 1

    Wish someone would mode this up, and hope others say thanks as well. These folks put some serious time in, usually unpaid, that made for a useful service then, and some great moments now.

  80. umm... privacy? by pesto · · Score: 1

    so now we have 20 years' worth of posts instead of just six with which employers can perform ad hoc background checks on potential employees -- their political statements, sexual practices, bad teenage poetry, etc.

    sure, historical context is cool, but at what price?

    1. Re:umm... privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      so you don't think that the employer, who is going to invest a considerable amount of money in you, doesn't have the right to check the employee out?

      i would check you out and if you turned out to be a ultra rightwing homophobe who wrote bad "white power" poetry as a teenager, i wouldn't hire you.

    2. Re:umm... privacy? by pesto · · Score: 1

      but the more likely scenario is you're gay, say, or transgendered, and your boss doesn't like that ...

      and even if you were a white supremacist 15 years ago, should that count against you now?

    3. Re:umm... privacy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once a Klansman, always a klansman.

  81. you're there now by crayz · · Score: 1

    Other people said they couldn't find themselves. My guess is google had some technical difficulties reindexing the archive or something, but it all seems to be there now. Try again.

  82. Sarcasm: How the primitives dealt with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nowadays everybody uses these fancy to display the emotive context of an internet posting. Do you ever wonder how they did it back in the day?(1985)

    Take two: {Enter sarcasm mode} Yes, "given." {Exit sarcasm mode}*(1)

    Notice the explict indication that Sarcasm is a "mode," not to be taken lightly. Second curly braces are used insstead of Less Than or Greater Than symbols. Clearly an indication of a society of pre-WWWites.

    (1) Quote courtesy of Oaf Feingold@MIT

  83. St. Peter Effect by mindpixel · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think this should be called the St. Peter Effect... you see, cuz when we go to heaven, St. Peter will Google us, and pull back everything we have ever thought, said or did - ranked by relevance or date... Just be glad that mere mortals are limited to 20 years of newsgroup postings!

    BTW: If you search on my name and find stuff about LSD, it was another Chris McKinstry.

  84. Neat but ........ by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    Going through the archives is certainly interesting (and embarrassing) but I was disappointed to discover that you can't go into a specific newsgroup and browse all the way back to the beginning.

    If you want to find old posts (other than the 'milestones' Google has selected) you have to search for them. That's great if you know what you're searching for. Unfortunately, most of my old stuff was under a variety of pseudonyms that my alzheimers won't let me remember.

    I think it would be cool to see all the messages in a group, in order, and browse through them.

    1. Re:Neat but ........ by hearingaid · · Score: 2

      Advanced groups search.

      You can select order by date. Unfortunately, it gives you the most recent first. Fortunately, if there's less than 1000 posts, you can jump right to the end.

      Where this breaks down is in big groups; when you've got 30,000 posts/year or so, there's no chance of reading them a 1000 at a time. :)

      --

      my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore

  85. Hey, Linus - by wirefarm · · Score: 5, Funny

    The card I have is a VG-2000 by DFI
    with 512kB video ram, supposed to be able to do almost anything (well
    1024x768 16 colours anyway). The problem is - it doesn't.


    Hey, buddy, quit bitching and just use it in VGA mode, like everybody else.
    If you don't like it, why don't you just go write your own drivers? While you're at it, why don't you go write your own Operating System???
    (Heh heh... Sure told him a thing-or-two...)

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  86. I'd Like to See SomeAnalysis of Amount of Traffic by weave · · Score: 2
    I'd like to see something like "There are more usenet posts in one day in 2001 than in all of the 1989s.

    I remember sizing a server in 1993 to be a news server and setting aside 350 megs for the news spool and then being pissed off when I got it because news traffic was up to 20 megs a day. The stats back then showed exponential traffic growth.

    How much crap is in a typical full feed today?

  87. apple computer by Cinematique · · Score: 1

    boy! the kids over at google sure are pro-macintosh, aren't they... :)

    1. Re:apple computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell if you think they are under/overplaying apple/microsoft/ibm/god/jebus/my left toenail.

      Just because you know what you are talking about, it doesn't mean that anybody else does.

  88. Re:Hello? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Australia is a pretty gay place. I just heard the news that "Grand Theft Auto 3" has been censored from the public. In my opinion, very fun game.

    Do you freely elect these people? If so, you get what you deserve.

    Sucks to be Australian.

  89. god dammit by ziggy_zero · · Score: 0

    i was hoping to see the usenet posts from my birthday, may 2. nuts.

    --
    I belong to the ______ generation.
  90. THIS is the first mention of AOL - back in 1988! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *THIS* is the first mention of AOL:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1886%40udcc va x1.acs.udel.EDU&output=gplain

  91. Spoiler Alert! by fastdecade · · Score: 5, Funny
  92. scary by aCC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes me nervous to find texts about people
    having been abused and writing about it. And
    that's by searching for their names and what
    they've done technically the last years.

    The Usenet was IMHO never as public as the web,
    but had much more a private character, where people
    could say what they only wanted to know certain
    groups.

    Just imagine, your name is well known (e.g. Linus Torvalds)
    and suddenly someone who searches for it finds
    texts you wanted to keep more or less private.

    1. Re:scary by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      The Usenet was IMHO never as public as the web, but had much more a private character, where people could say what they only wanted to know certain groups.
      While Usenet certainly isn't as public as the web, if anybody posted to the Usenet thinking it wouldn't be as public as on the Web, they were deluding themselves. It's not like there's any sort of security on Usenet to block anyone from reading what you posted. Indeed, Usenet is set up to be as open as possible.

      What's scary is that someone thinks it's scary to be archiving public forums. This isn't Big Brother. Just imagine losing all the history contained in Linus' various Usenet posts.

      -sk

    2. Re:scary by aCC · · Score: 1

      What's scary is that someone thinks it's scary to be archiving public forums. This isn't Big Brother. Just imagine losing all the history contained in Linus' various Usenet posts.

      You're missing the point here. Linus' various Usenet posts are nothing compared to posts in touchier newsgroups.

      Searching for my father's name brought up this other relative, who wrote about his girlfriend having been abused as a teenager and what to do.

      Not exactly the stuff I expect to find or what I want to know, when I see him. Maybe archiving newsgroups which aren't about sensitive topics would prove your point more, but don't forget that there are more newsgroups than comp.os.linux.*

    3. Re:scary by Squirrel+Killer · · Score: 2
      You're missing my point. Usenet was never intended to be a private forum. Posting to the Usenet is not like writing in a diary or calling a confidential support hotline, it's like writing on a New York City unisex bathroom stall wall.

      I think posterity should outweigh privacy for those that hold privacy so cheaply. Ask yourself, what would have prevented you from reading that same message, besides the fact that you don't read that particular newsgroup? At least your relative's post didn't end up as a headline in his local paper.

      -sk

  93. I FOUND IT! by someone_took_my_nick · · Score: 4, Informative

    The famous post, i have seen it quoted so many times. So here it is in the flesh, posted by Linus Benedict Torvalds himself to comp.os.minix, 08:53:28 PST 5th October 2001. Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&th=8ed1169d0 b48c9b8&rnum=2

    1. Re:I FOUND IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its funny because Ive been looking Torvalds messages month by month since 1991 to.. (I cant remember), and I felt like I was happening right now! Interesting things I read:

      - That famous Linus first post about Linux.
      - Questions about "Minix or Linux"
      - Some flames 386BSD vs Linux, and why Linux was more popular (because the cool name).
      - Questions about "the future of Linux", in 1993!
      - The long awaited 1.0, with people joking about Linus making patches to 0.99-p2001 (if they could know whats going on now!)

      Well, and so on, I just read a lot of historical messages! Thanks google!!

    2. Re:I FOUND IT! by Nate+Fox · · Score: 2

      And the thread of 8 posts of Linus announcing that he was working on an OS similar to minix:

      I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. ... It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

      and the last post in the thread: One of the things that really bugs me about minix is the way device drivers have to be compiled into the kernel. So, how about doing some sensible installable device driver code (same goes for minix 2.0 whenever).
      I think Linus took his advice. :)

      ahh, the nostalgia

  94. Vestiges of FidoNet by LittleGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I found some of my earliest postings migrated from FidoNet to the Usenet groups. My jaw dropped when I saw the domain:

    My.Name@p0.f860.n6007.z87.FIDONET.ORG

    No wonder when the Web hit, people wanted Short Domain Names.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    1. Re:Vestiges of FidoNet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tom? Is that you?

  95. Everyone just wants something to bitch about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When they first removed the ability to access the deja news archive people bitch and bitch and bitch .. How dare they remove my post from the internet ... that's my crap. blah blah blah even when google said it would be back they just wanted to integrate it in correctly. Now the put the abiliity back and people again bitch bitch bitch bitch.

    I swear, my opinion included, but slashdot has becoming nothing more than a bunch of whining sissy's who complain rather than accomplish anything

  96. What really would be funny... by root_42 · · Score: 2

    ...if one could actually reply to those old postings. Esp. the one asking about MS-DOS, and if someone has more information about it. :-)

    --
    [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
  97. A informative google site. by perrinkog · · Score: 1

    Here is another handy little link at google:
    http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

    It gives overall search trends for the prior week, and a few more specific graphs displaying what the author thought were important sub-trends.

    --
    (Karma = auto -1)
  98. And yet two days earlier by blirp · · Score: 2
    Seems to be a bit hard to locate the oldest message.
    Though this one is from May 1st...

    M.

  99. Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here's where you should dig for prior art references.. it would be nice to tailor your query like "Where date[some patent date]"

    www.bigattichouse.com

  100. BANG! by SIGBUS · · Score: 1

    Gotta love those bang-path addresses converted to mailto: links!

    --
    Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
  101. delete all spam to get another 20 years ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    If they delete all the SPAM from their databases their storage capacity would probably double it's size :o)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
    1. Re:delete all spam to get another 20 years ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they'd have exactly the same storage capacity. They'd have more free space.

      Try searching for:
      alt.common.sense.lacking.lacking.lacking

  102. Political offices and past postings by AgTiger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given that this archive now stretches back to 1981, I'm left wondering how this will affect some of the younger politicians with aspirations of getting elected to grander seats of power. Politicians who follow in Clinton's footsteps, for instance, might have much more difficulty convincing people that they didn't inhale, if they have a long posting history to rec.drugs.cannabis.

  103. All your google... by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

    are belong to us.

    and this is the first AYBABTU quote I could find. One of the most important posts in the geek history, for here is where all the AYBABTU annoyance started...

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
  104. Great! by Quixote · · Score: 1

    Now I can go back and read all those Minas jokes
    Only oldtimers will remember Minas, I think

  105. Oh, My by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    To recall those days when I'd get suckered into flame wars...

    The silly rantings on technology...

    Intel vs. Whomever...

    Microsoft vs. Whomever else...

    And all that silliness on rec.games.mecha...

    So glad that's ... er ... changed ... and um ... behind me ...

    Couldn't happen on slashdot, could it?

    Nah....

    Still, gotta go look up that new coal-tech battlemech I drew with ascii art, that was pretty cool :-)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  106. That one dosn't show up either. by autopr0n · · Score: 2

    Strange. You'd think google would be able to just do a select min() from their DB, though.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  107. A bunch of collective dumb-asses by Sabalon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man...I was just looking at some of my old posts (which I don't even remember how I made them).

    I think we can have a collective opinion that when we were younger, we were a bunch of dumbasses.

    1. Re:A bunch of collective dumb-asses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were and still are, for sure.

  108. Serdar Argic by Elvis+Maximus · · Score: 2

    When I think old Usenet, I think Serdar Argic, the prolific anti-Armenian cross-poster who was widely suspected to be a bot. Was the reality or artificiality of Argic ever definitively determined?

    Makes me want to pull out my old "Howling Through The Wires World Tour" t-shirt.

    --

    -
    Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.

    1. Re:Serdar Argic by jdaily · · Score: 1

      Serious waves of deja vu just came crashing through my monitor.

      I should go collect all those old posts and assemble them as a collection of essays. Perhaps they'd be valuable for college courses in critical thinking.

    2. Re:Serdar Argic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kibo is God.

  109. It has my LITCRIT parody from Jan '83!!! by Creosote · · Score: 1
    Okay, I've got a couple of embarrassing posts in the ancient stuff (like a query to alt.sex from 1990 involving possible side effects of pseudoephedrine...). But my gosh, it has my long-lost first attempt at computer humor, posted from UCSD in January 1983, a pseudo-Unix manual entry for litcrit, "perform standard interpretation of literary work".

    I was a grad student in English at the time and had only been using Unix for a few months—I was evidently unclear about which man section this belonged in. It's not quite as funny as I remembered it being, but it stands up reasonably well. Though an updated Litcrit with lots of new buzzwords and options is obviously needed...

  110. First mention of slashdot by jonearth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First mention of slashdot

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=slashdot&hl=en &s coring=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=17&as_minm=1&as_miny=19 97&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=8&as_maxy=1997&rnum=5&selm=5 cr9je%24j2i%40mirrors.cellnet.com

    :P

  111. Greencard Lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Green Card Lottery 1994 May Be The Last One!
    THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED.

    The Green Card Lottery is a completely legal program giving away a certain annual allotment of Green Cards to persons born in certain countries. The lottery program was scheduled to continue on a ...

    For FREE information via Email, send request to

    Canter & Siegel, Immigration Attorneys
    3333 E Camelback Road, Ste 250
    Phoenix AZ 85018 USA

    Sure is important to preserve such historic posts ;)

  112. This further proves my theory... by bamm · · Score: 1

    If it's not on Google, then it doesn't exist.

    --
    www.sguil.net
    The Analyst Console for NSM
  113. Way cool blast from the past by jbarr · · Score: 1

    This probably won't get mod'd up because it's really just a "me too" post, but...

    It was SO COOL to type in my old, original email address that used when I first got Internet access. It returned almost 800 hits! I sorted the list by date and found some postings dating back to late 1993. Not too old for some, but I find it impressive!! What a blast from the past!

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
  114. "not much" porn by ManualCrank+Angst · · Score: 1

    As a percentage of all the porn that exists today, it was very small. But expressed as a probability that I would be able to get my rocks off, the amount of Usenet porn in the early to mid 90's was what I would call "sufficient".

    --
    Hate trolls? Troll 'em back...at home!
  115. less complete now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I started posting in 1993, and prior to this '20 years of posts', I was able to access my posts back to roughly 1996. Now that the upgrade is in place, the groups I posted to back then now only go back to 2001. Joy of joys.

  116. first post! by trb · · Score: 2
    Wow. There is really lots of interesting historical context in there, and doing a quick scan for my quaint and curious forgotten posts, it looks like most of them are there.

    Until computer networks were overrun by the multitudes, they were populated by mostly research and development sorts of folks, and the signal to noise ratio of the posts was a bit higher. But that only lasted a few minutes.

    Here's one of my first posts, from 1981.

  117. Minux by Ratbert42 · · Score: 2
    Here's one of the interesting ones from 1991:
    • In article <1991Apr12.185342.4699@news.iastate.edu> vancleef@iastate.edu (Van Cleef Henry H) writes:

    • >I recently downloaded the IBM PC demo from plains to send to a Cobol
      >Wizard who wants to learn Minix and build a Cobol compiler for it.

      Right. And don't forget about Ada - we need that too. And, oh let's see now, perhaps a good relational database system....

      The possibilities boggle the mind, chill the blood, call for a stiff drink, and make one check the calender to see April what, now?
      John Nall
    It's amazing what a difference a decade makes.
  118. Huzzah! by Nikau · · Score: 1
    This is definitely a good historical record for generations to come.

    I mean, I'd love to know my great-great-great-great-grandchildren will be able to know through the USENET archives that I lived in a world where I could see BARELY LEGAL TEENS on THEIR WEBCAMS! Or that I could MAKE $50,000 in 10 WEEKS! Or I could have VIAGRA shipped to MY DOOR for REALLY LOW PRICES!

    Technology's amazing, ain't it?

    --
    There is no escape from The Muffin.
  119. First mention by jonearth · · Score: 1
    1. Re:First mention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First mention of karma whoring: you

  120. bollocks to all that by streetlawyer · · Score: 2

    The main use for this is to demonstrate to the youngsters the greatest troll of all time

  121. Disappointing Timeline by Myddrin · · Score: 2

    I was dissapointed that the time line didn't cover any of the antics on alt.religion.scientology which lead to a great deal of lawsuits. And IIRC, ended in some pretty scary pre-DCMA descisions being made.

    --
    Myddrin
  122. Museum of Internet Needed by vbprgrmr · · Score: 1

    The advantage of the internet, its immediacy, is its greatest shortcoming. Homepages, email, and message postings evaporate faster than newspaper pulp in this electronic world. At least with newspapers and other artifacts, there is an effort to save them. But as servers close down or move, homepages change and email is deleted, everything we create here will disappear.
    So what is needed is some museum or library of the internet. It should save both in hardcopy and on servers, samples of first homepages and other content of the net deemed important. It will be a huge undertaking, but so were real museums and libraries.

    1. Re:Museum of Internet Needed by thehamster · · Score: 0

      Well, there is web.archive.org, which goes back to 1996.



      Oh, and damn Worcesterhire County Council - there schools ISP (I'm a 6th former) thingy bans Google Groups (because there 'Usenet News').

      --
      -- This is not a sig. But I'm a liar.
  123. First mention of perl by wscott · · Score: 1
    Here is the first mention I could find of perl by Larry Wall. It is humorous because he is announcing the birth of his daughter Geneva Marie and lists perl has her sibling at age 3 months.

    The first announcement of perl 1.0 is here . Patches (a new concept!) followed shortly after that.

    -Wayne

  124. Wow! A self-perpetuating rant! by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

    Just think, 10 or 15 years from now, maybe slashdot will be long gone and someone will make the old archives available. Then you can gripe about how your rant on slashdot was intended to be part of an informal, temporary discussion group, not meant for the public domain.

    That will give you something to do every decade or so, perhaps you can work on applying for that copyright in the meantime.

  125. Elvis Lamp by IdocsMiko · · Score: 1

    Oh great, I'm so proud that my Elvis Lamp posting in the Friends newsgroup will be preserved for posterity.

  126. First Post from an AOL user... by Hugonz · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    fuck...it was a really good joke...but /. didn't let me write:

    What?? no caps???

    AlL iN CaPs

    Hugonz

    1. Re:First Post from an AOL user... by F452 · · Score: 1

      but /. didn't let me write:

      What?? no caps???

      AlL iN CaPs


      How about:

  127. Sept 11=AOL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting reading in the 11 September 1989 InfoWorld (page 38). The
    following is a paraphrase of an article by Yvonne Lee

    America Online?

  128. I'll be impressed... by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 1
    ...when they removed the long outdated FS/FA/ebay posts. Auction posts have no purpose two weeks past their posting date and they render the generic search engine useless; you have to use the advanced features to weed out the trash. FS posts cease to be useful after a month to a year depending on the item.

    Think of the server storage space they'd gain if they deleted these posts.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  129. First (and only?) post by Bill Gates by toast- · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First post (and not even under his own account) can be found here.

    Maybe other celebrities can be found in the archive..

    Find the article
    here

    1. Re:First (and only?) post by Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow! He embraced and innvoated Gordon Letwin's account!

    2. Re:First (and only?) post by Bill Gates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

  130. The post that started it all: by BigWorm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Thanks Linus

  131. err, yeah . . . by hawk · · Score: 2
    Although I was surprised at how close my 1984 posts were to what I would write today . . .


    but still, I'm sure there's some doozies in there . . .


    hawk

  132. THANK YOU! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks to this information I found a flaw in my online profile.. it seems I posted an online sex ad once in a discutable newsgroup. Also thanks to the guy that pointed out how to remove posts of yourself in delusional periods in your life, for instance in alt.sex. alt.dating (y'all trolls know what I'm talking about!)

    Pffffewww, that was a close call. However, I still made the post so it's stored *somewhere...*

    Damn sure I'll never use that e-mail address again!

  133. Anyone else NOT find their old posts? by Eugene+O'Neil · · Score: 1


    I've seen plenty of people complain about the fact that they could find their old posts. Is there anyone else out there like me who couldn't find any old posts? I made plenty of usenet posts in my day, but you would never know it by searching google for them. I am sure that some of my old posts are better off forgotten, but I remember some of them were pretty good too. Wah.

    1. Re:Anyone else NOT find their old posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had the same problem. I could not find enough ego-inflating posts by myself to masturbate to in honor of the days gone by.

      Looks like we're in the same boat, eh?

  134. Earliest mention of TK-421 by xTK-421x · · Score: 1

    More Star Wars Questions

    Some guy discussing how Darth Vader can't be Luke Skywalker's father in 1982, mentions how they named TK-421 differently in the book vs the movie. Woo. ;)

    --
    "TK-421, why aren't you at your post?"
  135. Pamela Anderson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is incredible. Looks like Pamela Anderson was first mentioned in a Married With Children episode guide on 2/28/92. Now to look up my old posts.

  136. Re:Dave Rhodes sighting in 1989 by davebo · · Score: 2

    Hi . . . but I think I've got you beat by a couple of months with this link.

  137. Fun with Patents Anyone? by 3seas · · Score: 2

    Wanna cup of Prior Art?

    1. Re:Fun with Patents Anyone? by Seehund · · Score: 1

      Hey, Tim Rue!

      Your dementia is thoroughly documented for the good of humanity. Find all your insane ramblings through Usenet history.

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    2. Re:Fun with Patents Anyone? by 3seas · · Score: 1

      that won't get you all there is. The oldest post I can find is from 1992 and posted via another person forwarding it from some other posting system network. try exact phrase "Tim Rue"

      How long you been around?

  138. has "x-no-archive: yes" been honored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does anyone know if Google has been honoring the "x-no-archive: yes" header line from Usenet posts? I used that a lot, but not all the time. Maybe that's why I can't find all my posts...?

    Ehhhh. Not sure.

  139. Gadzooks! Bitnet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aaarrgh. My old Bitnet posts. Egad.

  140. Holy Nostalgia, Batman!!! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Wow.

    I just took a look and did a search on myself. Found a bunch of stuff I posted back in 1992, 1993, when I was still 'surfing' using Penn State's Mainframe!

    COOL!

  141. braincells by eyeball · · Score: 2

    I did a search for some of my old email addresses. After reading old posts, I've come to the conclusion that I've actually gotten stupider over the years. I blame all the beer I drank during the dot-com years.

    --

    _______
    2B1ASK1
    1. Re:braincells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beer? WTF? Did you have a dead end job? Everyone else was snorting fucking coke as fast as columbia could produce it.

    2. Re:braincells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahahaha ahahahahaha hahah!!!

  142. Be careful what you say... by berniecase · · Score: 1

    Your words will come back to haunt you.

    My first Usenet posts were in early 1996, looking for possible sources for a high school project. A later post showed how much of an ignorant Windows user I was, bashing the fuck out of Mac users.

    Funny, now I own no computers running Windows, use a Mac exclusively, and my home NAT box is a Linux box.

    My, how 6 years of using computers have changed me.

    --Bernie

  143. Original Linus' announcement of Linux. by heffel · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I'm surprised no one hase posted this yet.

  144. Re:I'd Like to See SomeAnalysis of Amount of Traff by kjr71 · · Score: 1

    Hmm. This looks really scary:

    http://info.net.uni-c.dk/newsstat/newsfeed/www/


    Or is there some unknown magic to interpreting these numbers?

  145. well by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1

    I'm glad ya'll are enjoying it. Google no longer shows any of the Usenet postings I've made (except for one), which is funny because I posted all of them using Google. It's strange, but I'll get over it. I just wish I knew why I wasn't important enough to archive ^^;;

    --
    [o]_O
  146. Now if only... by Wells2k · · Score: 1

    ...google were a publicly traded stock. It is things like this that make me want to invest in a company that I believe is doing a good job at what they do.

    Google provides me with a tool that helps me in my job, allowing me to search for fixes to problems that I run into. No other service provides me with the flexibility and capability that google provides.

    If I could purchase stock in this company I would purchase it in a heartbeat.

  147. First post of Slashdot by Andreas(R) · · Score: 0

    Back in 1997, this was the first post to news about Slashdot!
    Thanksfully, it's still around!

  148. Yes, I forgot the URL by Andreas(R) · · Score: 0
  149. Re:Say thanks Or Posting of emails on slashdot... by tandr · · Score: 1

    you, btw, did a great joob too!

    you effectively subscribed these guys to couple more spamlists...

  150. Linus Torvald's first post on USENET! by Andreas(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting

    His first post. It was posted in 1991.

    I think this is kind of scary (if it's abused like what I am doing here)

    1. Re:Linus Torvald's first post on USENET! by Andreas(R) · · Score: 0

      Actually, digging deeper into searching, I dound that he also posted in 1990 (from a drifferent email) It's found here. ;)

    2. Re:Linus Torvald's first post on USENET! by Andreas(R) · · Score: 0

      His favourite sig:

      Linus "God, not the flamethrower .. ahhhh" Torvalds

      I wonder if he still uses it?

  151. archive is not complete by tim_maroney · · Score: 2

    I went looking for a couple of long-lost messages, but they are clearly not in the archive. Search for "Bean-Hill-Influence Lad", a parody of a bad comic book called the Legion of Super Heroes, and you will find quite a few messages quoting and discussing the original post, but no copy of the original.

    Similarly, I looked for the original discussion of the resemblance of Star Trek's Ferengi to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes in sf-lovers, and found that it is also not extant in the archives.

    It worries me that the two messages I went looking for are both not present, in that it seems to imply quite a few holes in the archive. Still, perhaps I can be content with the 8,280 posts containing my name.

    Tim Maroney
    the first USENET censorship case

    1. Re:archive is not complete by d-e-w · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, they are attempting to pull together archives from many different sources. Remember, the Usenet feed was extremely poor prior to the mid-90s (It is still poor, but it's heaven compared to the way it used it be.) You couldn't find any site with a complete feed, and if there's only one source for the archives of some of these newsgroup archives, they WILL be incomplete. And that's just blaming the newsfeed, not other possible issues.

      There is a newsgroup whose history I am particularly interested in. Deja's/Google's original archive started in January 1996. With this recent update, posts have been added from May, 1994-March 1995. There is still nothing from April 1995-December 1995, and it's pretty clear to me that the "new" material came from one limited source. It consistantly lacks posts from particular posters (including every posting of the FAQ [!] which was posted by the same person for many years.) But it's more than what we had before. We've already been able to track down and verify some information. Of course, the newsgroup underwent a major change beginning in May 1995 (which was mainly complete by January 1996) and we'd love access to those posts too. But Google Groups is free, and attempting to provide access to what was a very ephemeral resource. The further back you go, the more spotty the coverage will be, due to the nature of Usenet and the older Usenet culture. If nobody was archiving the group during certain years, they're not going to be able to retrieve those posts (which I think is especially a problem in the alt hierarchy.)

    2. Re:archive is not complete by arnex · · Score: 1

      There is still nothing from April 1995-December 1995

      I found plenty from that timeframe. Here's one that was interesting in light of your comments though.

    3. Re:archive is not complete by d-e-w · · Score: 1

      I found plenty from that timeframe. Here's one [google.com] that was interesting in light of your comments though.

      I was trying to say that there is nothing from the particular newsgroup I was speaking of from April-December, 1995. That particular newsgroup suffers from an archive gap for those months. (Well, not entirely--there are five cross-posted pieces of spam with a reference to that newsgroup in their headers; but otherwise there is nothing from what was a rather active newsgroup. Whatever source they received posts from that time period from did not contain this newsgroup.)

    4. Re:archive is not complete by arnex · · Score: 1

      I totally missed the point that you were talking about a particular group. Sorry. I saw your post after reading Mr. Madere's request for archives from that same general period and thought I might have uncovered some wider connection. :)

    5. Re:archive is not complete by d-e-w · · Score: 1

      :P

      I think that the problem is that early Deja began archiving in 1995 (around May), but didn't archive some of the alt.* groups until 1996. Although, bizarrely enough, the archives for the group begin exactly on January 1, 1996.

      I don't think they've tried to cover the lapses in Deja's own collection process. So they've now got a bunch of earlier stuff, and the majority of later stuff, but not the in-between whereas they were ignoring us ;) It's pretty funny.

  152. Dear God... by dygytyz · · Score: 1

    I helped Osama bin Laden fix a problem with his Megahertz PCMCIA modem... The terrorists won way back then:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22sean+burbidge %22&hl=en&rnum=7&selm=315d73a8.3864303%40news.esca pe.com

    --
    Mmmm... Pistol Whip...
  153. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I can't find the original posting anywhere, only replies and references to it. I guess I will remain an ignorant youngster.

  154. Finally, the missing piece! by vrmlguy · · Score: 2
    Back in January, I was "interviewed" for an article in Wired about some files that I had lost and then recovered via Google's cache. At the time, I mentioned that there was still one file missing, a Usenet posting.Well, I've got it back now!

    Thanks a million, Google!

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  155. This is great! by dougmc · · Score: 2
    Searched for my username and found my first Usenet posts ... half of them I remember, half of them I dont'.

    And I seemed smarter than I remember being. Most odd.

    1. Re:This is great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I seemed smarter than I remember being. Most odd.

      Yep, proof that USENET is bad for your brane.

      Something I remembered:

      The 1991 Soviet Coup. That tiny relcom line was a sign that things would never be the same again.

  156. Drudge's "first post" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  157. ah, memories of insanity.. by mr.ska · · Score: 2
    I just took a nice trip down memory lane, looking through the archives of alt.my.head.hurts. I dunno what I was smoking (or being exposed to) that year, but it sure did produce some odd posts.

    Jessica "Eaten By A Bengal Tiger" Cohen, if you're reading this, go make some toast and stop wasting time online. GUMBY BRAIN SURGERY!!

    --

    Mr. Ska

  158. You guys are killing me by filbo · · Score: 1

    with all the nostalgia from three years ago. If I read one more post about how "young and innocent" someone was when they were 16 (IN 1998!) I'm going to bust a seam...

    1. Re:You guys are killing me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah d00d, those days were 4wS0m3! I was smoking my moms menthol smokes and doing happy sock like every other day while playing Duke Nukem. Fucking tits man!

  159. first Drudge Report by spiritu · · Score: 1
  160. Spam.... by _avs_007 · · Score: 1

    I remember our school made a big deal about this... Ok, it was just our dept.. :)

    Basically the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for spam to include Spam as it relates to the internet. They said that students in the Computer Science department at the University of Southern California first made the association with the Hormel Meat Product as a way to describe e-mail. I can't remember the exact way it was worded, it was too long ago. But the fact that my dept actually got credit for it was cool :)

  161. How nicely self-referential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's so nice that this post was moderated to "Troll"...

  162. AALIB - the new ascii pOrn by WyldOne · · Score: 1

    Now we can have ascii movies of pOrn! Now where was that tape...

    --

    make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
  163. Newsgroups better than web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Another reason why we shouldn't use Slashdot.

    At least with USENET our posts our saved, but with Slashdot, whenever it goes out of business, all our posts will be lost!

    1. Re:Newsgroups better than web by nrc · · Score: 1
      It's worse than that. With the decline of USENET and ascention of web boards, tons of useful information is being poured into sites that may only keep the information around for days or weeks. At least slashdot has kept some kind of history that could be easily saved and ported elsewhere if they disappeared.

      Shocking, but true - thousands of first posts are being cast into the oblivion on a daily basis.

  164. My first post on Usenet in 1994 by thilmony · · Score: 1

    I've been reading Douglas Adams since I was in speech club. Cool huh?

    to alt.fan.douglas.adams

    what a dumbass...

    --
    YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
    1. Re:My first post on Usenet in 1994 by thilmony · · Score: 1

      My god... my alt.sex post is embarrassing from Jan 1995 as well.

      --
      YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
    2. Re:My first post on Usenet in 1994 by Pryon · · Score: 1

      My god... my alt.sex post is embarrassing from Jan 1995 as well.

      Yeah, I just found some embarrassing alt.sex posts of my own from 1990. Problem is, I don't even remember reading alt.sex, much less posting there.

      In explicit detail.

      "Uh. No, mom, that was somebody else with the same name. I don't even know what 'doggy style' means."

  165. Where are the responses? by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 2

    Looking at the context, they are claiming that lots of people answered, yet Google only keeps 5 posts in the thread.

    It seems that the archives are very incomplete.

    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  166. heh by Nate+Fox · · Score: 2

    I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series.
    --circa 1982

    1. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Did anyone else notice the first Star Wars post was authored by none other than Randal L. Schwartz?




    2. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://groups.google.com/groups?q=crumbler+97&hl=e n

      :-)

      epi

    3. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=5rko37%24nfa% 40news-central.tiac.net hahahahaha - first result

  167. Awesome by Fractalizer · · Score: 0

    I searched for some of my own postings and stumbled across one in which I'm asking for help with my first Linux installation in May 1992 (Kernel 0.96a). Brought tears to my eyes.

  168. Where did they dig the data up from??? by silentbozo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where in the world did they dig this data up from? Were these tapes that Deja had somehow acquired, but never read in, or did Google actually root around and restore backups from way back when, and if so, from who did they get the tapes from???

    I figure that Google has to be getting these posts from trusted sources, or else you could inject false data into the historical archives. Anyone know for sure?

    I gotta say, it's weird seeing how much I used to post. Of course, it was back when USENET was actually useful, and not clogged with spam and idiots... The funny thing is, that AOL used to be the same way (back when that was one of the few ways outside of academia to get something like an e-mail address, remember bitnet?) but that was even farther in the past...

    1. Re:Where did they dig the data up from??? by d-e-w · · Score: 1
      Where in the world did they dig this data up from? Were these tapes that Deja had somehow acquired, but never read in, or did Google actually root around and restore backups from way back when, and if so, from who did they get the tapes from???

      I figure that Google has to be getting these posts from trusted sources, or else you could inject false data into the historical archives. Anyone know for sure?

      Deja always said that they intended to have archives back to 1981. I presume that they did acquire some archives (which were then passed on to Google), and that perhaps Google continued their research after acquiring Deja. Deja was doing most of its existence--they just may have not had the staff or the knowledge required for such a mass data conversion project.

      Thinking about trusted sources and the historical record--you've got to take Usenet with a grain of salt (as is true with ALL historical records). Yes, it is a historical record, but seen through a certain bias. Early Usenet was limited in scope--it was contributed to by mainly by academics and people with certain types of access which weren't really useable by the norm. Current usenet has other biases (it tends to attract users more towards the 'fringes' of society, not the LCD.) The historical record isn't the be-all-and-end-all. The reasons for its existence and population must be examined as closely as its data. Data fraud, in particular, has been rampant on Usenet for years now. That throws all data into question.

      As for sources injecting fake data into the records--it's possible. The questions you must then look at are why? for what purpose? and how would it affect? Affecting the accuracy would be the biggest concern. But because the existence of the records as a whole are the main importance (in my eyes) unless there was mass data fraud (which would be fairly apparent), its effect would be small. In a lot of cases, those that perform fraud do it so poorly that it would be obvious.

      And, as a historical record, I think that Usenet ranks more as a intellectual curiousity than a serious area of research. But people have done serious research on the damnest of things!

  169. long thread by clovis · · Score: 1

    I can't seem to find the thread:
    "I AM ELEET! SEND ME WAREZ" or I will get medevial on your ass!

    I'm not sure how "eleet" was spelled, I think it predated 31337 or whatever.
    All I want is just to re-read one little thread and they can't even get that right.
    Computers. hrrmph.

    Hey, maybe we can form a club of all the people who actually posted to that thread, assuming there was more than two of usand just just a lot of aliases.

    1. Re:long thread by Legion303 · · Score: 2
      This is the earliest one I could find in that thread.

      -Legion

  170. X-No-Archive, my badge of honor by Fencepost · · Score: 3, Informative
    Hah, my claim to lasting online fame!

    I'm pretty sure I get to take the credit for that one - something like it would certainly have existed eventually, but this is the earliest discussion (by ~5 months) that even mentions anything like it, even if I did suggest it as X-NoArchive instead.

    I just wish I'd saved the original email as well.

    --
    fencepost
    just a little off
  171. The challenges of prognostication :) by Lancer · · Score: 2
    From the Torvalds-Tannenbaum debate, Jan 30 1992:
    Of course 5 years from now that will be different, but 5 years from now everyone will be running free GNU on their 200 MIPS, 64M SPARCstation-5.
    I just thought this was priceless :)
    --
    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  172. how can i search a group via name by thilmony · · Score: 1

    and sort it by date, old to new?

    --
    YES, there is a McDonald's in Hanoi Square.
  173. WAAHH. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, cut your crying, baby. If you want private conversations, send an email. Slashdot is not the place for your lame trolls, numbnut.

  174. See the American Taliban's posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are John Walker's posts from years past: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_uauthors=doodoo @hooked.net&num=100&as_scoring=d&hl=en
    (Hmm ... his user id was "doodoo"?)

  175. But I didn't download... by 4mn0t1337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, with so much of our past now logged, will this be the "I didn't inhale" of the Teens and '20s?

    "Why yes, I did occasionally scan alt.pictures.binaries.bestiality, but I didn't *download* anything..."

    --

    ______
    Once: you're a philosopher. Twice: a pervert.

  176. the more things change... by donk,+the+magic+llam · · Score: 1
    heh... taken from somewhere in the google archives... take note of the date and the last line... in particular

    Date: 21 November 1982 05:51-EST

    From: "James Lewis Bean, Jr."

    Subject: The Corvus Concept

    Does anyone have anything good to say about one of these machines?

    I went to see one at a "Computer Store" and seemed to know moreabout the machine than the sales people did, oh well. It looks great! The price is great. The problem seems to be there is no documentation on the software that exists. And there doesn't appear to be much software for it.

    For those of you who do not know what a corvus concept is...

    The concept is an under $5K workstation.

    68000 based with 256K standard.

    15 inch 35mhz video

    Bit mapped 720x560 display.

    120x56 in landscape mode

    90x72 in portrait mode

    Two serial ports.

    One omninet interface (1mbps serial rs422)

    Detached Keyboard with lots of extra keys.

    Anyone know where I can get unix for it?

    1. Re:the more things change... by Legion303 · · Score: 2
      Hold the phone! *TWO* serial ports for under $5K? That's gotta be a misprint.

      I was 10 in 1982, and working on Apple ][ hardware. No, scratch that, that must have been later. I think I was on a Timex Sinclair 1000. Programming graphics demos at the time, but I'd definitely never heard of unix.

      If I had stuck with the programming I bet I'd have a great job by now. Oh well.

      -Legion

  177. Moscow BBS by cirby · · Score: 1

    I was one of the first dozen or so Americans to log into an "open" BBS in Moscow (and, AFAIK, the whole Soviet Union) back in the late 1980s in a direct phone hookup, after I heard about it on Relay.

  178. Yeah... by cirby · · Score: 1

    I've noticed quite a few of the old posts and threads from the late 1980s are just plain missing. A bunch of the old sf-lovers stuff, for example.

  179. Natalie Portman by nrc · · Score: 1


    More importantly, here's the first mention of Natalie Portman .

  180. Better than alt.pave.the.earth by SCHecklerX · · Score: 2

    was the crossposting flamewars between a.p.t.e and a.d.t.e (alt.destroy.the.earth). The pavers just wanted everything turned to asphalt for their driving pleasure, while the destroyers seemed to be much more creative in finding ways to totally obliterate the planet. Every now and then they'd start arguing. Very amusing. And then alt.devilbunnies would somehow get in the middle of it and things just went wierd from there :)

  181. Re:Say thanks Or Posting of emails on slashdot... by augustz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, thought about that. But these addresses were on the web in that form already and you have to beleive if google links from one of their pages to these then they'd be crawled anyways.

  182. Re:Wow! A self-perpetuating rant! by zeno_2 · · Score: 1
    I agree with what you are saying.. but..

    perhaps you can work on applying for that copyright in the meantime.

    I am pretty sure that you dont apply for copyright, it just happens. So, if I create a song, and put it down someplace in some sort of form (on audio cassette, or written in musical notation) then it is copyrighted. You might actually have to put a copyright notice on the piece of information to make it copyrighted, but you dont have to 'apply' for it like you do a patent. I may be wrong though, im not a lawyer..

    Zeno

  183. Old post by andkaha · · Score: 2

    Oi! Wow! I just did an ego-search and boy was that embarrassing...

    I found some posts from November 1992, three months after getting my very first UNIX account!! (I must remember to make a note about that, it's soon to be ten years since, so some celebration is in order). I believe I asked for Calvin & Hobbes graphics in rec.arts.comics.misc. And later, I asked for a scanned copy of the Einstürzende Neubauten logo, hmmm, in the wrong group.

    Two years later, the WWW started forming. I wasn't very impressed. You could actually have sort of a map of the thing in your head. It was so small, only a couple of hundred places to go, and not very well connected. Mosaic was the thing to use. It didn't use a cache so it was painfully slow. Everyone put their "hotlists" on the web (things hasn't changed very much, have they?).

    The World Wide Web Worm! Does anyone remember that one? That was the first search engine that I came across.

    Then everything exploded, the web expanded even more and many places went commercial. Later everybody merged and went bankrupt. Now it just stinks.

    --
    It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
  184. Fascinating -- check it out! by drix · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is really fascinating, almost like a time capsule! Can you even imagine a time when everyone in the entire online world didn't know what an emoticon was?! Witness this extraordinary paragraph:
    Recently, Scott Fahlman at CMU devised a scheme for annotating one's messages to overcome this problem. If you turn your head sideways to look at the three characters :-) they look sort of like a smiling face. Thus, if someone sends you a message that says "Have you stopped beating your wife?:-)" you know they are joking. If they say "I need to talk to you :-(", be prepared for trouble.
    You read these phrases like, "A company called Microsoft," or "A new virus called AIDS"; what a throwback. Very cool!
    --

    I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
  185. Two interesting posts by arnex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Q: Who posted this question back in May 1995?

    A: The same guy who posted this request a few days earlier.

    And look where we are now.

  186. the beginning of linux by leiz · · Score: 1

    this is the earliest message I can find, but I know there's been earlier ones...

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=linux&hl=en&sc or ing=d&as_drrb=b&as_mind=17&as_minm=5&as_miny=1990& as_maxd=11&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=1991&rnum=4&selm=199 1Oct5.054106.4647%40klaava.Helsinki.FI

  187. Definitely patchy, but pretty cool by laura20 · · Score: 1

    Some of my early technical group postings are there, but my early recreational stuff on rec.arts.comics is all missing -- that group doesn't appear to be archived before 1989.

    I also sent in a correction; Cantor & Seigel were the first commerical all groups spam, but not the first all groups spam, that occurred in Jan 1994 with Clarence Thomas IV, "Global Alert for All"

  188. Fascinating Historical Record by KingSchlong · · Score: 1

    I've just spent the whole morning reading usenet posts relating to significant events in US history of the past 20 years. Fascinating stuff.
    Reading through some of the debates which raged at the time of the US bombing of Libya are particularly intriguing, mainly because of the parallels to the current situation with bin Laden and the Taliban (eg here). (For those not familiar with the history, the US launched an airstrike on Libya in retaliation to a terrorist bomb attack in a German disco which killed two US servicemen. It later turned out that probably Syrian or Iranian terrorists and not Libyan ones were responsible for the attack). The arguments put forward by both sides are almost identical to the current ones (eg these guys arguing over whether the Reagan administration really has evidence of Libya's involvement, or this guy comparing people who comdemn the bombings to Nazi appeasers in 1930s Europe). Hmm, spooky stuff.

  189. First instance of goatse.cx by pipeb0mb · · Score: 1

    OK, enough of the silly unimportant searches.

    Where's the FIRST mention of goatse.cx?

    That person = internet king.

    :-)

  190. 1982! by stonewolf · · Score: 2

    WOW! I went and looked and found postings from my self starting in 1982... Some of it was really weird. Based on my postings I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. At least the things that matter have changed.

    Stonewolf

  191. My life, open for all to see by dw5000 · · Score: 1

    For me, the Usenet is a way for me to look back on college and what a stupid idot I was back then. All the embarrassment -- and the funny stuff -- is now back online.

    My wife is really flustered. She refuses to let me read what she wrote back then. I did anyway, and honestly, it's no stranger than some of my rants.

    First time I met the woman who would become my wife, she was talking about how she had the "Internet" thing. I mentioned I was a minor-minor Usenet celeb. Turns out she read my posts.

    The Usenet also was responsible for my first online girlfriend, my first (and last) dotcom job, and a few other embarrassing moments. Reading it is like reading your high school journals -- you find that you have changed, but the things you don't like about yourself haven't changed at all.

  192. Buy a copy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a pity that you can't buy a copy of the archives. How big would they be if you dumped them is a useful format (eg rnews) and gzipped them up ? A couple of DVD's worth (it would be worth buying a drive just for this).

  193. HELO MY NAME IZ BIFF. by meehawl · · Score: 1


    Who can find the oldest extant BIFF posting?

    I have this one from 1989.

    But this one in late 1988 refers to BIFF.

    According to this, BIFF was originally created by Joe Talmadge , also the author of the infamous and much-plagiarized "Flamer's Bible". The BIFF filter he wrote was later passed to Richard Sexton [q.v.], who posted BIFFisms much more widely
    ...

    BIFF (not B1FF) was created by Joe Talmadge (of "Ten Rules for Flaming" fame) of HP in 1988. Joe posted three postings by BIFF from his account, and shortly after Richard Sexton began sending out BIFF@BIFF.NET postings for about a year until he lost interest.


    I can't find the original 1988 Talmadge postings on Google. I've tried various versions (and MISPELINGZ) of the BIFF addresses.

    --

    Da Blog
  194. Holy Mother Of God...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got posts from BEFORE I was even a teenager....
    EEEK!

  195. ...and I finally win :-) by alech · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine and I were competing on who did the first usenet post, before today he had won this by a few days, but now I'm off by more than 1.5 years: 04.04.94 vs 24.12.95 :-)
    Good ol' Fidonet.

  196. my first post 1988-11-02 - BEAT IT by stiefvater · · Score: 1

    my first post -1988-11-02 - BEAT IT.

    1. Re:my first post 1988-11-02 - BEAT IT by meehawl · · Score: 1


      Beaten by 1988-09-23.

      There are always bigger fish.

      --

      Da Blog
    2. Re:my first post 1988-11-02 - BEAT IT by stiefvater · · Score: 1

      > There are always bigger fish.

      sure sure. it's a game, see. now who can beat you?

      -k

  197. The Linux-announcement by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    Over 10 years ago Linus said this:

    "I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows)"

    10 years have passed since those words were uttered. Where is Hurd? "Oh, it's coming! just wait for it!"

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  198. Ouch! by Anabas · · Score: 1

    Couldn't resist...

    Mr Malda learns about Linux?

    1. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent work. With such an intelligent post, it could be none other than the 'lemming' leader of this site.

  199. Embarrass yourself now, avoid the rush by vaxer · · Score: 2

    You already know that people are going to Google you. Save them the trouble by doing what I did -- tell them about the skeletons in your closet. Remember, it can't be used to blackmail you if it's already public record...

  200. Tanenbaum V. Torvalds by sPaKr · · Score: 1

    I think we should all take this time to re-read the tanenbaum v. torvalds debate. It speaks more then anything else. Tanenbaum speaks like every CS professor I have ever had, "This new tech will change everything". In the end it changes nothing, the new tech gets pulled in to the old or is quickly discarded. The debate is classic, Infact I have seen this renacted in community theater (read: Univerity computer class) more then once. Each time the professor is dead set he's right, and proven wrong in history.
    I guess the old addage still holds true: "Those who can do, those who cant teach"

  201. star wars episode 6 predictions by grepMeister · · Score: 1
    hmm... this doesn't bode well...

    I wish Lucas & Co. would get the thing going a little faster. I can't really imagine waiting until 1997 to see all nine parts of the Star Wars series.

    neither can I.

  202. Oh god, the nostalgia really got me... by Explo · · Score: 1

    It really stirred some memories to read about the first rumours about Amiga, written in 1984. So weird that I can now read postings that speculate about computer that I didn't even see myself until two years later, and I definitely didn't even know about Usenet back then. Now, if only some company would put all the Games Machines, Computer & Video Games, ZZAP 64 etc. magazines online as eg. PDFs, I could start living totally in the past. ;) (I have quite a few of all those, but scattered around here, around my parents house etc...) Geez, I'd really like to see all those Mercy Dash comic strips that I have possibly missed.

    --
    Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
    1. Re:Oh god, the nostalgia really got me... by PRAEst76 · · Score: 1

      You really need them as PDF? Otherwise it's surprising how many are available online. I don't know much about the console mags & C64 mags because I was a Speccy / Amiga owner, but I know many mags are archived online by enthusiasts (often WITH covertapes, posters, silly 3D pullouts etc).

      A few I know of:
      http://www.zzap64.co.uk/
      http://www.old-computer-mags.co.uk/
      http://www.ysrnry.co.uk/cover1.htm
      http://www.mjwilson.demon.co.uk/crash/
      http://www.sincuser.f9.co.uk/
      http://www.btinternet.com/~amigapower/

      Mercy Dash is currently unemployed at http://www.grenville-evans.co.uk/mercy.htm

      LONG LIVE THE PAST!!!

      --
      PRAEst76
    2. Re:Oh god, the nostalgia really got me... by Explo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for those links, that was all pretty new to me, but now I know what for I'll use a few days (hopefully not too many nights ;) of my Christmas vacation. ;)

      --
      Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
  203. John Walker's Usenet postings by harmonica · · Score: 2

    It seems that Google Groups can become an interesting resource (or one that can haunt you from the past) for more than your own postings, see this article on John Walker's postings.

  204. Saving the Environment and Landfill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electronic Repairs, vintage car parts
    Thank you google. You have just extended the life of many electronic consumer durables like TV sets , and car parts.
    The environment will love you . five stars.

    On a better note, some patent people will richly reward you.
    find out who is mining - and you can get subscriptions...

  205. looks like this might be it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    OH HOW I ENVY AMERICAN STUDENTS

    Since it's coming up to the start of a new academic year I thought I'd take this opportunity to explain how lucky you Americans are to have a fraternity system.

    English Universities are so dull by comparison. Like most students in England I had to rent private accommodation for my second and third years, but it never occurred to us to build a whole culture around collectively renting a rather dilapidated house in Clapham. It wasn't even single sex accommodation, so we couldn't engage in the fun and games of para-homosexual activities - Girls just don't have the same grip on your loyalties as your Greek brothers ;-). And while cliques certainly form in English Universities, the are all much too boring to come up with the idea of hazing. I fondly recall diving off a weir and almost drowning when I was 12 because everyone said I was chicken. If only it had been possible for me to gain respect in later life through similar tests, and if these tests could have been combined with pseudo Masonic rituals culminating in the awarding of a little badge, then that truly would have made my time at University worthwhile. And while I still have friends from University, these friendships seem so hollow compared to bonds of fraternal brotherhood since they are not based on solemn vows of fellowship, mutual sacrifice, group solidarity and owning the same poxy little badge.

    Then there's sheer joy alcohol seems to bring fraternity members.. By the time I went to university the delights of getting dangerously drunk at parties had started to seem mundane. But to American students in fraternities, the bravado of excessive alcohol consumption is a an exciting new and illicit game where you can prove yourself worthy to all your male friends and simultaneously circumvent college alcohol policy - thereby proving what a rebel you are too. Gosh.

    I am also rather fond of the references to ancient Greece. It reeks of a history far nobler and grander than anything a British University can instil its students with, and the wearing of togas must make it seem as authentic as a ploughman's lunch.

    I think what I am trying to say is that Fraternities give young Americans the chance to grow up in their own time, and that it is regrettable that no similar opportunity is afforded to European Students. In particular, I find it sad that even some American students forego the opportunity to wear togas and claim to be Greek. Really this should be mandatory, so every graduate will be secure in the knowledge that they have gained something much more valuable than a degree from an American University - a little badge with some Greek letters on it.

    Although I am not American, I admire the system so much that I would dearly love to become an honorary member of a fraternity. I have set my heart on becoming an alumni of Theta Omicron Sigma Sigma Epsilon Ro Sigma. I do so hope this is possible.

    1. Re:looks like this might be it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks!

  206. Usenet in 1981 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if we look back to 1981 and dig up the first post to alt.test, if maybe it will read something like:

    FIRST POST BIAAAAAAAAATCH!!

  207. Re:Dave Rhodes sighting in 1989 by cancerward · · Score: 1
    that's only november 30. here is a november 13, 1989 post. Very first Dave Rhodes post on USENET

    Within 15 minutes people are talking about calling the FBI, and later other people forward it to their postmasters, etc.

  208. E-mails from a traitor by godless · · Score: 0

    So there you go:
    E-mails from a traitor

    This journalist is already using the tool to track that Johnny Walker guy.

    In this case the post were post-1996, but it's an example.

    So get used to this... or don`t use your real name on Usenet!

  209. The Ghost of my own Usenet Past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw things I'd forgotten I said.

    I saw email addresses I'd forgotten I'd had.

    I read about things I'd forgotten had happened.

    My legacy as a subscriber of cup.portal.com, which was Usenet for anyone with a credit card circa 1989, before AOL came along, has been revealed.

    I found out that an old friend had mentioned me along with a programming project of mine in an article in 1984. My first post was in January, 1989.

    I cringed at the results of a search for "My M. Name".

    And then, an evil grin spread across my face, and I started to type in THE NAMES OF COWORKERS, THE NAMES OF FRIENDS, THE NAMES OF ENEMIES.

    And it got really fun, really fast. :-) Oh, boy, does google.com know how many watercooler conversations this act will spawn?

  210. serious consequences by zedyke · · Score: 1
    I know that going down memory lane is entertaining... but i also know that i'm not the only one who is cringing after the humor wears off.

    As has been said before, the social consequences of this history can be utmostly harmful. Think of all of the ways that this can be used to destroy privacy, beyond just the job sphere. Who is going to be wrongfully accused of actions based on their past rants? Who is going to be the next victim of our government's domestic terrorism/COINTELPRO raid? How many of you are facing your past angst, anger, fear and rebellion where looking back feels like you are watching "Welcome to the Dollhouse" once again?

    When i started posting on Usenet, it never dawned on me that it would be accessible beyond my beloved geek community. I was too young to consider what the differences between public and private are. And besides, what physical public spaces are recorded, searchable and everpresent? There's a certain value to the ephemeral aspect of the public sphere.

    How is this data going to be used in the future? We already know that our messages are valuable, as Deja made millions. As data is becoming more and more aggregated, who is going to use these posts for what purposes? Do you really want your archived messages to be factored into your current reputation?

    I am fully well aware that the removal of posts destroys the value of the archive. It's exactly that reason that i would encourage everyone to entertain themselves and then purge the past. Deja respected our pasts by only archiving forward; make it clear to Google that we expect the same level of social responsibility. It may be funny right now, but it may not be so humorous when you have no control over your information and must continue to pay for your past.

    1. Re:serious consequences by zedyke · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you've suffered the consequences of this aggregation and are willing to anonymously tell your story, i am really interested in hearing it. Personally, i would like to encourage Google to change its decision, something that can only be done collectively through people's voices.

    2. Re:serious consequences by Legion303 · · Score: 2
      If you guys didn't want your posts archived, you should have used the "X-No-Archive: yes" header. As far as I can see, Google respected those requests (they had to; Deja never archived them in the first place).

      -Legion

  211. Great by CobesTheGreat · · Score: 1

    Now I can see all my old porn posts. I feel so ashamed.

    --

    --------------------------------------
    58.0% slashdot corrupt
  212. First spam by kimihia · · Score: 2
  213. If only they could do it for Fido by PRAEst76 · · Score: 1

    I never had Usenet in my youth. I had Fidonet keeping me off the streets and out of the sun. I wish they could pull 20 years of all Fidonet postings out of a hat but those babies are gone.

    To look over my immature rantings would be bliss. Maybe some of my insights I could publish as a coffee table book and make money there, but instead I'll have to trawl this new usenet archive looking for anything I can sell to the tabloids.

    --
    PRAEst76
  214. Re:first mention of AOL - back in 1988 [link] by Splork · · Score: 2
  215. Quoted posts a problem!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think you'd have to ask the person who has quoted you to remove his post. if he has an
    expired email address or says "no" basically
    your stuck i guess.

    removing your posts / x-no-archiving them is
    useless really if people have quoted you.
    cos your words remain in the archive.

  216. Following up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You can followup on any post you find on google.

    First, make google account for Usernet posting.

    Second, find an article you want to followup. You would find message identifier as the cgi argument selm in the URL, i.e.:

    selm=10414%40hydra.Helsinki.FI

    Take that, and stick into ULR as follows in place of argument msg:

    http://posting.google.com/post?cmd=post&msg=10414% 40hydra.Helsinki.FI

    Voila, revive that flame war you had XX years ago!

    Hiroto

  217. but Quoted posts a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    __provided__ no one has quoted you, then you are a free-person...

  218. deja had this b4 google bought them & took it by Matpalm · · Score: 1

    i remember 3 years ago searching back through ancient posts on dejanews.

    then google brought the archive (well over a year ago) and took it down the majority of it. this is not something new, it's just that they have FINALLY put it all back up again.

    in fact dejanews.com is still a valid url (but points straight to groups.google)

    & IMHO the deja search and viewing pages we much better ;)

  219. but quoting the post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but even x-no-archiving it does not help
    if someone goes and quotes it?

  220. A good enough excuse.... by perlchimp · · Score: 1

    I am posting this (30 times) for the same reason why I do not want people to be able to read my posts from ten years ago. Damn, I was an idiot...

    PS: I am compiling mysql 3.23.44 on a pII 200, so I have time to burn

  221. Damn Usenet archiving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once accidently posted under my real name, and now that post is archived, drat!! It it so annoying.