Slashdot Mirror
Staggeringly Amazing Church of Lego
rcharbon writes: "This link brings you to yet another of the web's compulsive personalities. Almost 18 months in the making, the lego church is astonishing. Christened as a monument to dead cats, no less." I know we post Lego things often, but this is an amazing project from Groundbreaking ceremony to completion. I was especially impressed with the mosaic works. The artist also has a number of other Lego works to check out while you're at it.
There really wasn't any need to start subscriptions here on /. now was there, Taco, when you could simply have charged hapless siteadmins in exchange for rejecting submissions linking to their machines...
Gah, do I have to do all the thinking round here?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
This should be pretty easy to implement, especially with all the subscription revenue rolling in. ;)
This sig is xenon coated, and will glow red when in the presence of aliens
Great idea. Even better, slashdot (which needs the money) could charge the sites for this service. The conversation might go like this:
Hapless Victim: Hello?
Cmdr Taco: Hey, I about to post a link to your site which will cause it to get blitzed, causing your ISP to charge you big bucks for bandwidth usage. Howz about you pay me to cache it instead...
Ya get the idea...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
He answered that..
The ability to cache a certain URL is given to the editor. They look at the site, decide if it can handle a slashdotting, and if not, enable the Squid-suit.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
So why can Google do it? Why force /. users to haphazardly mirror (potentially copyrighted) things rather than doing it in an orderly and controlled fashion?
The sites that would be concerned about copyright issues would probably be able to handle the load - CNN, NY Times, etc... so you just don't enable caching for them. (And if someone complains about copyright violations... Disable it for that site!)
In the last Q&A CmdrTaco and Hemos held, this question brought up, and the simple answer is, they cant, because of copyright issues
Would a caching proxy really constitute a copyright infringement? Does the one in my house, or the one at the office? What about the ones that many ISPs set up to cut down on their upstream bandwidth costs? How about the browser cache on every computer? For that matter, what about the Google cache?
My theory is that /. doesn't want to increase their own bandwidth consumption when they can let others handle part of the load they generate.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The entire domain is *totally* /.ed heheheh
:P