Newzbin2 Closes For Good

AlphaWolf_HK writes "Newzbin2, one of the most recognized index sites for usenet, has closed for good. A statement reads: 'It is with regret that we announce the closure of Newzbin2. A combination of several factors has made this the only option. For a long time we have struggled with poor indexing of Usenet, poor numbers of reports caused by the majority of our editors dropping out & no-one replacing them. Our servers have been unstable and crashing on a regular basis meaning the NZBs & NFOs are unavailable for long periods and we don't have the money to replace them. To make things worse all our payment providers dropped out or started running scared. The MPA sued Paypal and are going at our innocent payment provider Kthxbai Ltd in the UK. Our other payment provider has understandably lost their nerve. Result? We have no more payment providers to offer & no realistic means of taking money (no, Bitcoin isn't credible as it's just too hard for 90% of people).'"

Comments

Kthxbai

[Hsien-Ko]

Apt.

Re:Kthxbai

[Anonymous Coward]

Apt.

How?

Re:Kthxbai

[dwywit]

Get it? apt-get, gettit?

Re:Kthxbai

[Anonymous Coward]

I learned from my hubby that the magic word is sudo. For example, sudo get me a sammich. Incidentally we use it as our safe word. I'm not sure why...

Re:Kthxbai

[X0563511]

That's not what sudo stands for.

It stands for Super User Do

Re:Kthxbai

[gannebraemorr]

She used it correctly. "As Super User, I command you to Do get me a sandwich."

Re:Kthxbai

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Which is exactly why "sudo stop" is the right thing to say if you're being whipped and can't take it anymore. Without the sudo, you might have insufficient privileges to stop the root process!

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations do it better than governments ever could.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship. He didn't say mass murder.

Re:Censorship

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Make no mistake about it, this IS the government doing it. What happened is the government has effectively given the MPAA governing powers.

The whole reason ACTA is currently law is because Hollywood basically purchased Obama. If he ran it through the houses, as is required in the constitution, it wouldn't have passed due to the recent furor over SOPA. So, he just ignored the constitution and signed it anyways. If you need proof, look here:

http://www.ustr.gov/acta
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1862 (PDF)
http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1740 (PDF)

All of those "free" poses, endorsements, and photo shoots from Hollywood celebrities weren't actually free, and Obama knew that. He had to take care of those who got him elected in order to get re-elected. This is the "change" that many "hoped" for.

Re:Censorship

[klingers48]

It's not even that simple. Look at the loaded, opinionist title of that article:

Piracy site Newzbin2 gives up and closes 15 months after block

Yeah, yeah... I know we all kind of give that knowing smile and half-eye-roll thing whenever we mention "legitimate usage!"... But still, the deck's stacked against them from the get-go. The media is abusing their position as much as the government to push the agenda of Big Content. Kind of frustrating really.

Re:Censorship

[Seumas]

The smart thing about self-censorship is that we have all of these industries gleefully starting up complex censorship systems to censor their own content, because they're under threat of the government doing it if they don't do it to themselves (and their users).

If the government did it, you could shout "CENSORSHIP!" and take them to court. And win.

When the private industries do it (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA), everyone says "Only governments can censor things. This isn't censorship, because it's private industries doing it. If you don't like it, don't watch movies, listen to music, or buy software!"

The same thing is accomplished. Perhaps more effectively, without any of the accountability under the law. It's sickeningly clever.

Re:Censorship

[Genda]

I'm sorry, just because Hollywood has bought the Democratic party doesn't mean they're above showing the Republican party a good time to pass a bill. Both sides of the aisle are equally whore ridden and I can show you the votes to prove it, so don't even bother. Obama just made it easy for the bullies in Hollywood to have their way. To be absolutely honest, as much as I'm offended by what these parasites have done to music, movies and game, I'm flat out terrified at what the rest of Corporate America is doing to patents, copyright, and more fundamental human Intellectual Property.

I saw a routine by a comedian the other day about how "They" indoctrinate presidents now. Obama is brought into a huge, beautifully appointed board room, sits at a hardwood burl meeting table and suddenly the lights dim and huge screen drops from ceiling. Then a short piece of jumpy film plays, its JFK in Dallas, seen from the top of a grassy knoll, through telescopic sights. Them BLAM. The screen recedes and the lights come up. And a disembodied voice come over the ceiling speakers and in a Texas drawl... "We liked that boy... We don't like you. Son, you gonna git an orientation tomorrow morning at 0600 sharp and we expect you to do what we tell you to do. Got it?

Re:Censorship

[Shoten]

Corporations do it better than governments ever could.

That's because there are no laws against corporations doing it.

Re:Censorship

[Jonah Hex]

Unfortunately all the credit card and payment providers really do censor the websites that can use them, especially once you want to include any type of nudity on your site. Even nudity for artistic/dramatic reasons can force sites like mine into the "high risk" providers who deal with the porn industry and their huge markup. I've had to be extremely careful with nudity to avoid getting labeled porn. - HEX

Re:Censorship

[MechaStreisand]

What part of his post made you think that he didn't know that it's a bipartisan problem? I would think that that's obvious to everyone right now. I mean, if it becomes obvious that the Republicans can't get elected in a majority anymore, then Hollywood might stop throwing money their way, but until then they need to know that whoever gets elected, they own. None of this contradicts what he said. He knows. Everyone knows. It's fucked.

Re:Censorship

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You talk as if loving the constitution is a bad thing.

I don't identify as right wing. In fact, I don't really like the titles of left or right. They make people take sides as if they were fans of a football team instead of thinking individually about individual issues. Sadly, that is all that the elections have turned in to, and why I have reservations about even bothering to vote, because the issues aren't even important. Why, for example, was Romney's dog a major issue?

Like most, you've bought into it. Just because I'm against Obama, you automatically identify me as the enemy.

I voted for Jeff Flake (for being anti-SOPA and anti-earmarks) and basically ignored the rest of the ballot.

Re:Censorship

[dbIII]

Hollywood purchased everyone that looks like they may get enough power to make Hollywood pay tax.

Re:Censorship

[AlphaWolf_HK]

If you got rid of corporations, you'd basically destroy the economy, and prevent a new one from growing.

Also, everything you said above also works when you apply it to unions.

The Bakers Union destroyed the American icon of treats - Hostess. After they did so, the Bakers Union leaders basically came away saying it was a victory because they stood their ground and sent a message, meanwhile 18,000 people lost their jobs, while the union leadership kept theirs. Hostess didn't fail due to mismanagement either, look at the practices the unions forced upon them. Workers who handled snacks weren't allowed to handle bread. Workers who handled bread weren't allowed to handle snacks. Bread truckers were supposed to refuse snacks on their trucks, even if they were headed to the same store. Instead they had to have a separate truck for snacks. The unions forced this practice due to a mutual agreement between two separate unions so that they didn't have to compete for jobs.

Unions also hate technology. Technology often costs them their jobs, and they force their industries to stay behind as a result. When shipping first started moving to storage crates, the unions forced their employers to allow the dock workers to remove the contents of the crate while it was on land, then put the crate on the ship, then individually load its contents back into the crate. Why? Because the union couldn't stand the thought of the dock workers losing their job. Technologies change, and there will always be frictional unemployment.

And then you have the bureaucracy the UAW creates. Employees who work at their station aren't allowed to correct problems with their equipment when it malfunctions, even if it is an easy fix. If they fix it themselves, then technicians who ARE supposed to fix it will file a grievance with their union, and the station worker will get reprimanded or even fired. How on earth can you compete on the global economy if you have to put up with that? It's no wonder GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.

The bosses of these unions talk their members up about how they need to prevent their employers from having a six figure income so that the employees can have a greater share, but meanwhile they are forced to give up their money to pay the union boss a six figure income or else they'll be forced out of their union, and then fired because the union has a stranglehold on employer contracts.

Unions also buy out the government, to our detriment! The sugar industry lobbied for the sugar tariffs. Because of the sugar tariffs, sugar is too expensive to be used in most food. Agricultural unions also pushed for corn subsidies. While the rest of the world uses sugar in their food, we use high fructose corn syrup. The chemists who create the world's soda pretty much all reside here, yet they make soda with sugar for the rest of the world, while ours has high fructose corn syrup.

Did this save any jobs? Not a chance, it just kept those unions happy.

In fact, union involvement has actually cost jobs. The steel industry lobbied for steel tariffs, saying that they'd lose their jobs if they had to compete with the global economy. The result of that is we pay a lot more for steel in America. Meanwhile, other countries pay less for steel. American goods now cost more, which means those goods now have a competitive disadvantage in the global economy. Steelworkers keep their jobs, but at the expense of many more jobs elsewhere in the economy.

Thank you unions!

As for your "clever social systems", those were tried many times, and all of them failed. Look at the Icarians, they were basically given an already built city for nothing at all when its previous inhabitants were forced out of it by the government. Yet somehow, they managed to have a rapidly declining economy until it all fell apart. Many *many* communes have risen and fallen for the exact same reasons. The only even remotely successful "clever social systems" were dictatorships, with millions dead in their wake.

And why on earth would you want a zero sum game? That implies no growth at all. Without growth, you are guaranteed to fail.

Re:Censorship

[AlphaWolf_HK]

No, the government censors. DMCA? We're not allowed to talk about breaking digital locks. If you do, you go to jail. The MPAA themselves cannot put you into jail, but they can force the government's hand thanks to that law.

The MPAA can sue you as well. But ultimately, how do they collect? They can't just go to your home and start taking your belongings and drain your bank account. They need a court order for that. The government makes that possible, and they send in the police to take it and hand it over.

Re:Censorship

[Opportunist]

The problem is that he is actually right.

Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not a right-winger and very much pro-Obama, mostly due to lacking any sensible alternatives. When you're faced with the choice between shooting and stoning, shooting is still the less painful alternative. But to be successful as a politician in the US (at least if you're running for anything above local level) you need backers who stuff your war purse. You need people who buy you and who of course expect you to act in their interest.

In the US, you have the choice between two hookers for prez. Problem is, they won't blow you, you're just the poor idiot who gets to swallow the crap.

Re:Censorship

[Taco Cowboy]

Umm...

Please excuse this dense-head ...

What's the right answer??

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, another constitution-worshipping right-winger. Doesn't it suck that Obama won? You're just taking out your rage, you people just make shit up all the time.

Ah, another delusional idiot who actually thinks it matters which puppet we elect to sit up there.

Speaking of making shit up, sure Hope you're ready for the Change you asked for. Get ready to move Forward in the direction they choose for you.

Doesn't it suck to have faith in politics when all you get is fucked over? One of these days you might learn. Doubt it though. You actually read this as an attack on the constitution, therefore the wool over your eyes is already working.

Re:Censorship

[gagol]

What is "B"?

Re:Censorship

[Airobot]

really?

Re:Censorship

[Genda]

If you got rid of corporations, you'd basically destroy the economy, and prevent a new one from growing.

That's bull. You could absolutely build a free market enterprise system on privately held companies and there is no reason that they couldn't function not only more successfully but also allowing their owners to treat their employees better and balance the profit motive with the need and desire to contribute to society. I can see no significant need for the blight that is corporations.

Also, everything you said above also works when you apply it to unions.

The Bakers Union destroyed the American icon of treats - Hostess. After they did so, the Bakers Union leaders basically came away saying it was a victory because they stood their ground and sent a message, meanwhile 18,000 people lost their jobs, while the union leadership kept theirs. Hostess didn't fail due to mismanagement either, look at the practices the unions forced upon them. Workers who handled snacks weren't allowed to handle bread. Workers who handled bread weren't allowed to handle snacks. Bread truckers were supposed to refuse snacks on their trucks, even if they were headed to the same store. Instead they had to have a separate truck for snacks. The unions forced this practice due to a mutual agreement between two separate unions so that they didn't have to compete for jobs.

Unions also hate technology. Technology often costs them their jobs, and they force their industries to stay behind as a result. When shipping first started moving to storage crates, the unions forced their employers to allow the dock workers to remove the contents of the crate while it was on land, then put the crate on the ship, then individually load its contents back into the crate. Why? Because the union couldn't stand the thought of the dock workers losing their job. Technologies change, and there will always be frictional unemployment.

I won't argue with you that modern unions are a mess and many unions cost workers jobs, but you picked the wrong example. The folks that just bought Hostess, hedge funds Silver Point Capital and Monarch Alternative Capital dumped a ton of toxic debt into the company on top of its own untenable debt burden from years of poor labor negotiations. The Vulture capitalists never has any intention of dealing with the labor issue (as expressed in the prior round of layoffs), and were far more interested killing off the company and part out its assets. Those 18,000 jobs were as good as toasted as soon as the vultures landed.

And then you have the bureaucracy the UAW creates. Employees who work at their station aren't allowed to correct problems with their equipment when it malfunctions, even if it is an easy fix. If they fix it themselves, then technicians who ARE supposed to fix it will file a grievance with their union, and the station worker will get reprimanded or even fired. How on earth can you compete on the global economy if you have to put up with that? It's no wonder GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.

I sure I could help you find a dozen other insanely stupid union practices that hurt profitability and endanger workers jobs. How does that for a moment compare with the point I was making above that some people are blaming corporations for our problems and some people are blaming the government and my view is that they are one and the same and that trying to separate them is a futile endeavor.

The bosses of these unions talk their members up about how they need to prevent their employers from having a six figure income so that the employees can have a greater share, but meanwhile they are forced to give up their money to pay the union boss a six figure income or else they'll be forced out of their union, and then fired because the union has a stranglehold on employer contracts.

Unions also buy out the government, to our detriment! The sugar industry lobbied for the sugar tariffs.

Re:Censorship

[fatphil]

What is this distinction between "corporations" and "governments" that you are trying to draw?
http://www.geke.us/MPAAVenn.html

Re:Censorship

[war4peace]

So then... Hollywood does choose the simple method: they buy ALL candidates and then just sit back and relax.
Money. Bringing power since... well, birth.

Re:Censorship

[Stuarticus]

What a load of crap, the Union didn't destroy hostess, the robber baron financiers did, they forced the staff to take pay cut after pay cut until eventually the staff had to say "No, accepting this amount of money as a wage is a worse option than being unemployed". The very definition of a free labour market in action. Maybe you should think what you would do if you were offered a 50% cut to your current salary while your bosses took a 100% pay increase?

Re:Censorship

[serviscope_minor]

The MPAA can sue you as well. But ultimately, how do they collect? They can't just go to your home and start taking your belongings and drain your bank account.

And it's the government that stops that from being possible.

Your point?

Re:Censorship

[Sulphur]

Censorship. He didn't say mass murder.

Editorship of mass deception.

Re:Censorship

[JackieBrown]

I tried a quick google search but did not find the answer. How much do hostess employees make on average? It's funny that the CEO's salary is mentioned constantly but not how much the employees make. Where they overpaid for what they do or underpaid? I image if they were making minum wage with no benefits, the union papers that I read would mention that.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Something like 99.9% of Nzb2's content was aggregating lists of copyrighted content. The site really had no legitimate users, because there are far better, cheaper, and easier ways of getting legit content than paying multiple subscription fees (one to nzb2, one to your usenet provider).

Re:Censorship

[TheGratefulNet]

the flipside is: things would have been SO much better under romney.

(rolls eyes).

yes, D's are bought by entertainment. guess what: entertainment pays about the same amount to BOTH parties.

who'd have thought they really want their ways to get in.

does not matter WHO is in charge. they think they are and they pretty much are.

Re:Censorship

[Hatta]

very much pro-Obama, mostly due to lacking any sensible alternatives.

It's not sensible to support Obama either. He's every bit as corrupt as Romney would have been. If you voted for Obama, you voted to continue the farce. Shame on you.

Re:Censorship

[crtreece]

Sounds a lot like a routine that Bill Hicks did in the early 90s.

"I have this feeling that whoever's elected president, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah - when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist scumfucks that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.... And then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'

"Just what my agenda is."

Re:Censorship

[tehcyder]

I always guess B in multiple choice questions. So far I've had an impressive 24% success rate!

Re:Censorship

[__aasehi2499]

Really? Lot of corporations putting whole villages into mass graves nowadays?

Caterpillar.

Re:Censorship

[tehcyder]

I don't identify as right wing. In fact, I don't really like the titles of left or right.

That's what right wingers always say...

Re:Censorship

[tehcyder]

When the private industries do it (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA), everyone says "Only governments can censor things. This isn't censorship, because it's private industries doing it. If you don't like it, don't watch movies, listen to music, or buy software!"

Asking you to pay to watch listen or use something is not censorship. If you think all cultural, physical and intellectual products should be freely available to all under a communistic Star Trek-type system, fine. I wouldn't disagree. But we'll have to move way beyond capitalism first, and I doubt most slashdotters would want to go there.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bakers Union destroyed the American icon of treats - Hostess.

Hahahahahahaha! I stopped reading right there. What a maroon!

Yeah...it's that damn Bakers Union's fault!

Re:Censorship

[amiga3D]

And that's the kind of comment idiots always make, if you disagree with someone just make him go away with a label. I might be classified as right wing but I do find myself agreeing with the so called left sometimes and then there are times I think both sides have it wrong. I think the current political climate enables all kinds of abuse because people are so divided they focus on each other rather than how our leaders are selling us all out. I was never a big fan of President Bush but most of what I disliked about his administration has been continued by President Obama. I actually wish President Obama was a better liberal because at least we might then have been able to get rid of the worst abuses of the Patriot Act.

Re:Censorship

[nschubach]

Why, for example, was Romney's dog a major issue?

It wouldn't be a problem if he didn't have Chinese dogs! How unpatriotic!

Re:Censorship

[fustakrakich]

No, the government censors.

That's because the government is following orders, and orders are orders. We have let the corporation become the legislative branch of the government. The government itself just supplies the muscle, the 'button men'..

Re:Censorship

[quacking duck]

As opposed to letting the American Taliban in the form of Romney (he played the extremist, he can suck it up and accept the label) and Ryan and all the "legitimate rape" morons (open or closeted) get into power and run roughshod over sensible people?

We know Obama failed to keep major promises, and some have nothing to do with Republican interference. He was still the least worst of the options. Sometimes you have to take a hit because inaction is even worse. And unfortunately the US is a de facto 2-party system where voting by ideals alone, even if it's "both mainstream parties suck, I'm voting a 3rd party" or spoiling a ballot means you have zero chance of getting even token representation. In a 2-party system they *don't* care that you cast a protest ballot, both sides see it as "well at least the other side didn't get that vote either."

In Canada we have one middle-to-far right (by global standards) conservative party in power, and 3-4 significant centrist-left parties depending on province. The Conservatives got a majority with about 35-40% of the vote, thanks to idealistic voting that split ballots among the others.

I don't like 2-party systems any more than you do (I assume), but in a first-past-the-post system that's what it eventually boils down to. And none of the parties have the balls to do the right thing for the country and its people, because fixing the electoral system they weaken their future prospects.

Re:Censorship

[Stuarticus]

http://www.cps-news.com/2012/11/18/the-demise-of-hostess-brands-was-at-the-hands-of-venture-capitalist-not-unions/

Re:Censorship

[Sloppy]

Why, for example, was Romney's dog a major issue?

Was it? I don't remember Gary Johnson talking about that.

Re:Censorship

[Skynyrd]

very much pro-Obama, mostly due to lacking any sensible alternatives.

It's not sensible to support Obama either. He's every bit as corrupt as Romney would have been. If you voted for Obama, you voted to continue the farce. Shame on you.

When my vote doesn't count (thanks electoral college!) I have the ability to vote for who I really want. However, in a close election, I would rather vote for the guy I don't want (Obama in this case) rather than let the guy I really don't want (Romney).

I think the "stoning vs shooting" analogy is a good one.

Re:Censorship

[jtgd]

If you got rid of corporations, you'd basically destroy the economy, and prevent a new one from growing.

Well I (and I think most people) don't want to get rid of corporations, I just want to get rid of my government being run by corporations. Would it destroy our economy to have our representatives beholden solely to the citizens that elected them?

Re:Censorship

[Skynyrd]

Apparently they didn't like the fact that he let the rest of us in on the secret.

Re:Censorship

[lucm]

Ok here is the same quizz, techie edition.

1. Which of the following is a form of censorship?
A) Microsoft offering computers and software to public schools as a way to support computer literacy while promoting their own products.
B) Apple deciding to put asterisks instead of the proper title for a Naomi Wolf book in its iBookstore.
C) Linus Torvalds forcing a lousy SCM system (twice) on everyone that wants to contribute to the Linux kernel project.
D) Facebook asking people to pay to have their posts floating slightly closer to the surface in the waves of uninteresting content submerging their servers.

To be honest the right answer to both quizzes is to mod my comment down as flamebait so for once the crowd appears to be right!

Still, the original point would be that mass murder *is* a form of censorship.

Re:Censorship

[Hatta]

As opposed to letting the American Taliban in the form of Romney (he played the extremist, he can suck it up and accept the label) and Ryan and all the "legitimate rape" morons (open or closeted) get into power and run roughshod over sensible people?

Any of those things would be preferable to continuing the illusion of democracy when we have none. We survived GWB and we would have survived Romney as well. There is much, much more to gain by breaking the one party system we have today than there is to lose.

Re:Censorship

[Seumas]

What are you talking about?

What does paying to watch or listen to something and intellectual property rights have to do with content ratings of music, movies, and software?

Re:Censorship

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Well, how about this one: Many left wingers don't like the stigma of being called a liberal, so they instead call themselves progressives. How can you not like progress, right?

Well, consider this: Eugenicists called themselves progressive. The prohibitionists called themselves progressive. Hitler once referred to his party as being progressive. You still like that label?

Or you can just do a total cop out and call yourself a moderate. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a true moderate. Maybe they can be moderate on a particular issue, but they'll be opinionated on something else. Take for example, I don't give a damn about either abortion or marriage. Moderate, right? but I am very much outspoken in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Left, right? I am very much against taxation, I am pro austerity, I am pro second amendment, I am anti-illegal immigration, and I am very much at odds with environmentalism. Right, right?

So what is it, am I moderate, am I left, or am I right? How about this: labels are for simpletons who can't think about more than two issues at once.

Re:Censorship

[Darinbob]

Because clearly there are two and no more than two political views in this country.

Re:Censorship

[bhiestand]

Any of those things would be preferable to continuing the illusion of democracy when we have none. We survived GWB and we would have survived Romney as well. There is much, much more to gain by breaking the one party system we have today than there is to lose.

For the record, it is far too early to count the cards from GWB. GWB left us with trillions in unfunded liabilities in the form of wars, VA benefits, Medicare Part D, and tax cuts. He also left us highly polarized and unprepared to deal with climate change, extremely high inequality, and a failing economy. We have absolutely no idea how we will solve these problems, or if we will be able to.

The only thing we should expect from the next generation is the writing of history books. And I suspect the Bush chapter will be quite a challenge.

Re:Censorship

[Raenex]

So what is it, am I moderate, am I left, or am I right? How about this: labels are for simpletons who can't think about more than two issues at once.

You're pretty much Libertarian. I have a Libertarian bent, but I like federal regulation on things like food and the environment. Why didn't you vote for Gary Johnson and the Libertarian party?

Re:Censorship

[K. S. Kyosuke]

A) Noam Chomsky complaining to Larry King during his primetime show that a conservative conspiracy prevents him from having access to mainstream medias.

Vids or it didn't happen. :-D

C) Spencer Tracy winning an Oscar for his role in Inherit the Wind

He won an Oscar for that? Are you sure?

another dot.com bites the dust

[Spy Handler]

lemme go submit this to Pud at fuckedcompany.com... brb

Re:another dot.com bites the dust

[SeaFox]

lemme go submit this to Pud at fuckedcompany.com... brb

Kthxbai.

No reason not to release codebase as open source

[Paran]

Let someone else take over where they're now leaving off, just like they did for newzbin1.

Re:Why?

[BLKMGK]

Hosting most likely....

Google Groups next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, now can Google Groups be the next one to close?

Seriously, while Usenet archives done properly can be of some good, Google's is the worst ever.

Search for information on medicine, get online pharmacy posts in the archive search.

Search for someone by name, and if there are any flamewars, ridicule, and/or defamation posts containing their name in the subject, those posts will be at the top of the search. Posts with actual useful content be damned, all they go off of is the subject keywords and maybe the references header.

Search for any topic not medicine information or by someone's name, get a random assortment of old and new posts by default, rather than a sorted order by date from newest to oldest, due to the default being by "relevance".

Oh yeah, and the Usenet archive is also used by employers and coworkers alike for trying to use outdated posts as either disqualification of employment or trying to get someone fired. Like it's some important background check from the long irrelevant past, while others including celebrities spout off on Facebook and Twitter.

(Yeah, I know about that Ron S, Sarah A, and Spencer S--but it didn't work, right? Come on Ron, you only shared the fact that YOU recently discovered the archive with your coworkers, but in fact HR made some minor changes but not as expected, didn't they? From what I heard, including a separation of two team members so there was a little less contact between them, and one was possibly up for a one month suspension from work--it was your call right Ron? How do I know? Ron, instead of taking it to a conference focus room (HP SD called them focus rooms, right?), you talked about it in the cube aisles. But the Google Groups 20 years backfilled archive had been around since 2001--you were that many years uninformed about Usenet.)

Anyway, I get a better search using Google web search (sorry, Everything) than I do with the Groups search. The Google Groups search may be good for finding spam, blackmail material, or seriously old outdated posts, but the search quality of the Groups search really does suck.

Re:Google Groups next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: Spencer S. should read as Spencer A. Now I've outed people for trying to get someone fired over Usenet posts, and needed to make that correction for the record.

(And that hmm.hmm.hmmmmm laugh from her reporting the information and her boss saying outright something to the effect of "I'm going to get him fired" isn't so funny now, isn't it?)

Re:Google Groups next?

[clickclickdrone]

Spot on. The original Usenet archive was a great resource, especially the older stuff. A fantastic history and repository of knowledge that was starting to be lost. When google first took it over, it was ok but slowly it had been made harder and harder to find the actual Usenet posts amongst the ads,forums etc. Heck, even forcing it to a specific newsgroup by name often fails to find tuff you know damned well is there.

Re:Google Groups next?

[zootie]

It's not just you, and not just the usenet archive. It's getting harder to find stuff, even when you know it's out there, and sometimes it's even harder when you're looking for specific keywords (it's like you're working against the grain). Between platitude only and text void web sites, flash, social media noise, and ad-driven algorithms, content is becoming harder to distinguish from irrelevant posts and spam. There is a also a strong trend to show recent results rather than relevant results, which only makes it harder when you're looking for something specific.

Hope you find your postings...

Re:Google Groups next?

[fatphil]

Agreed.

I've said, on usenet, "google groups sucks" probably between 50 and 100 times, but if you search for those posts, you'll be lucky if you find more than a handful. Oooh - it doesn't return any now! The best thing is that I use this example every time it's relevant. The more they suck, the more I say they suck, and the more they demonstrate that they suck. It's hard to use this example without mention the concept of censorship.

I'm guessing that "google groups sucks" might be the new "X-no-archive: yes"...

Re:Google Groups next?

[X0563511]

Not to mention that half the spam comes in through google groups. To such a point that many recommend filtering posts out from that provider entirely!

Re:Bitcoin

[BLKMGK]

Hrm, anyone using that service that can speak to it? Might be interesting as a secondary usenet service and I could probably gen up a single bitcoin a month easily enough :-) Mind you without indexing services like this one closing there might not be much point...

Seriously

[grumpyman]

wtf is newzbin2? I used USENET but since existence of online forum... what's the point?

Re:Seriously

[suso]

wtf is newzbin2? I used USENET but since existence of online forum... what's the point?

The irony is your username is grumpyman.

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

Usenet is now widely used for broadcasting unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. Something like a gigabyte digitized movie would be split unto 100's of Usenet posts. One way to get the movie would be to manually find and download these 100's of posts one by one. Another way is with an automated client that would get an index file pointing to the 100's of Usenet posts, and use the index file ot retrieve the individual posts without manual attention. Putting the index file together required sitting around monitoring Usenet feeds figuring out what was what, distinguishing them from spam, etc. So where did the index files come from? Well there was a commercial company doing it, called newzbin2, the one you asked about. But it is now shut down.

Re:Seriously

[tlhIngan]

USENET is an efficient way to distribute files, and very popular because it's download only (so no uploading or tagging your IP address). The thing with Newzbin2 is that they provide NZB files which are index files that your usenet provider (for those that offer web-based interfaces like Easynews) or your NNTP client can easily parse and retrieve the appropriate postings to reconstruct the file. It's basically a list of posts.

This is important as retention at the two major USENET providers (most are resellers of their service) is over 1000 days now, but the indexes are only valid for around 300-600 days. The only way to retrieve the other files are through index files like NZBs.

Re:Seriously

[Nyder]

wtf is newzbin2? I used USENET but since existence of online forum... what's the point?

Newzbin2 (or any sites like it) is a search engine for usenet and will put the files you select in a convenient .nzb file that you then load up in your usenet reader (that supports it of course), and it will automatically grab the files you had selected.

For example, I can search the alt.binaries.multimedia newgroup for a poster called tvdude, and it will lists the files he has uploaded.

This is more convenient then having to download all the headers in the newsgroup and having to sort thru them to find what you want. In fact, it's made it so easy to get stuff that usenet became more popular and is being targeted now with DMCA notices.

Re:Seriously

[grumpyman]

Wow didn't realize... holy crap. I recall .bin splitted into 30 posts to get a single GIF : )

Re:Seriously

[Seumas]

That usenet is essentially a decentralized discussion facility and you don't need to be forced into an online forum for the discussions? That it's just simple text without pages full of ads and idiots putting a hundred megabytes worth of shit in their signature line? That you can participate in discussions of over 100,000 subjects without having to sign up for 100,000 different accounts at centralized websites, each owned and moderated and maintained by different guys?

Re:Seriously

[wvmarle]

Back in the day I've used Usenet on and off, it was entertaining, sometimes useful. Heaps of forums on all kinds of topics.

Yet the binaries part that's what I never really got - most of it can be found on various torrent and file sharing sites as well, and the binaries are also seemingly the undoing of Usenet. This search engine is being targeted by the DMCA, that must be primarily for files posted in binaries groups, like your example. Other ISPs stopped hosting Usenet because of DMCA take down notices, and to a greater extent the sheer volume of traffic in the binaries groups. It's a pity.

Re:Seriously

[Volastic]

wtf is newzbin2? I used USENET but since existence of online forum... what's the point?

I've always thought the same thing, so did it the hard way, downloading them all in the
newsgroup they appeared it, Never saw the sense in running a NBZ file.

I think my ISP is one of the last to offer free usenet service, the fact nobody knows
what a Newsgroup is now days is just downright nice of them. Largest area of free quality Pr0n
one can trip across as well.

If a NBZ file spanned a group they don't carry I'm SOL, It's always been throttled, filling in my MAME roms
took quite awhile, so better to download a very large file some place else.

FWIW:
I've noticed changes to my usenet access lately, I'm required to log-in (name and password), which
I've never had to do before (Cable Internet), so haven't, and can't see myself ever doing so.

Re:Seriously

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Usenet binaries are SOOO much better than torrents. Zero chance of letters from your ISP, you have no reliance upon other people to keep seeding forever, you max out your pipe (mines 30Mbit) all the time, you yourself don't need to seed forever (go ahead and delete it when you finish,) and there is some great software that automates everything you want.

For example, I don't need to hit the pirate bay and find an ideal release of the dark knight rises. Instead I type the name (even a partial name) into couchpotato, and it automatically finds it. I can even tell it what quality I want it in, whether it is a full 50GB blu-ray rip, or maybe aim for 1080p with 10GB file size. (Generally I do the later, and only do BD rips for really good movies.)

I can also automate downloading all of my favorite shows as they air without having to manually do anything. Dexter, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and others automatically download on to my NAS without having to visit a single website. Just set it to get that show, and forget it. That program is called sickbeard. If a release of an episode is broken (happens sometimes, happens even more on torrents,) and a proper is released, it automatically downloads the proper release and discards the bad one.

Re:Seriously

[icebraining]

I can also automate downloading all of my favorite shows as they air without having to manually do anything. Dexter, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and others automatically download on to my NAS without having to visit a single website. Just set it to get that show, and forget it.

Plenty of torrent clients (like uTorrent) support RSS just for that nowadays. You just go to a site like showRSS, pick the shows you want and copy-paste the RSS into your client.

Re:Seriously

[Anonymous Coward]

It was my understanding that the original Newzbin team is who came up with the NZB XML spec (and it was hosted on Newzbin and then Newzbin2).

Newzbin wasn't just a repository of NZB files, but it worked with the raw headers. Newzbin was good in that it bridged both worlds well. You could search editor created and/or reviewed NZBs, or you could do raw searches to find your own content and create your own NZB (just a click away). The editor system was good because they would filter out noise and cleanup naming conventions, and the raw and condensed searches were also very polished (ie, better than any other usenet raw search sites I've seen) and would work well even when there wasn't an nzb file included with the posting.

Re:Seriously

[zootie]

Still, the raw speed of usenet and the set it and forget it nature is so much better than torrents. Torrents take babysitting to make sure you get them right (and you have to keep them around longer when you're done if you want to be a good citizen and make sure the ecosystem keeps working). With nzbs, you just chose them once and you're pretty much done in seconds (with the selection) and you're watching content in minutes (and there are many automation tools that blow RSS out of the water).

There is also the liability issue. With torrents, depending on local laws, you're usually liable because you're transferring data to others. With a distributed system like usenet, (most legal precedents place) the liability on the side of the poster (good luck finding him/her), and you're just catching something that is out there, and not taking any further action. It detaches providing something from consuming it.

BTW, Sickbeard can also work with torrent files, but I don't know how much automation it supports.

Re:Seriously

[war4peace]

XSUsenet.com. I found it after having my interest in Usenet boosted by the article, so I looked for a free server to browse. Everything else asked for subscription upfront, and my wallet remains shut at the moment.

Re:Seriously

[Inda]

I never really used .nzb files unless they were posted to the group.

I never found it a hassle to subscribe to a dozen groups, set the client to update once an hour, and leave it at that.

Pick a site like, I dunno, VCDQ to find folder names and search in my client. .nzb files were always for the lazy and against the spirit of things.

It used to take me longer to unpack the RARs and that was always a favourite boast of mine.

So many good groups died over the years, and that was sad. No one gave props for floods, only flames about NOT ENOUGH PARS!!!111, which I always filled. a.b.m.jungle ftw

Re:Seriously

[whoop]

Oh, you mean that place you can get information on 100% authentic air jodrans and viagara for teh cheep?

Re:Seriously

[guises]

Usenet as a discussion forum has been dying thanks to web forums, and no other reason. It's too bad, functionality is much greater with Usenet, but much like email clients vs. web mail most people seem to think that having these discussions on web pages is more convenient.

Re:Seriously

[nschubach]

Also torrents run into that whole "being watched" problem. If your IP is logged as downloading whatever show the watchdogs are monitoring and gets reported to your ISP you can now get your internet disabled with a big fat piracy notice. A guy at work had this happen because a roommate was torrenting some show.

Aye, dreadful

[Anonymous Coward]

Very true, Google Groups must be the most atrocious service in existence from a major provider. If one of my students created something that appalling for a project they'd be very lucky to get through. It provides neither good functionality nor good aesthetics. The only adjective that comes to mind is "primitive", and given that this is a Google service, also "pathetic". Google should really be ashamed of their incompetence.

But nobody cares.

That's OK - there's Gmail

[rueger]

Which, according The Reg, will now allow a 10 gig attachment.

Google vs MPAA??

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail

[QuasiSteve]

MPAA: Dear Google, It has come to our attention that the following links to online attachments need to disappear right quick under the DMCA for reasons.

Option 1
Google: Go fuck yourself. You want to drag this out to a lawsuit? We'll see who has deeper pockets and greater political clout. USER FREEDOM, ARRR!

Option 2
Google: Well since our own TOS says people can't use our services for illegal activities and you have made a compelling case that this is the case here... OK.

Oh, and of course the Google Drive 'attachments' require an account and setting up of access rights. On the positive side, you'd only share the files you want to share with the people you want to share with. On the negative side, that means it would be highly unlikely that it would achieve the same status as the generally openly accessible Usenet services. You would have to establish a vast web of trust and hope there's never an MPAA agent in there that would work its way through that web. That is, if it would ever grow popular enough for them to care. I don't remember there being a crackdown on Dropbox for any 'piracy'-related issues - even though there's certainly the odd pirated movie to be found on there.

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail

[wvmarle]

Your gmail is not public, or is it?

So not only can the RIAA not see what you attach to your e-mails, it is private distribution to a single recipient (or at least a highly limited list of recipients) which is a quite different ballgame than public distribution.

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail

[TheRaven64]

Back before things like bittorrent and even gnutella, it was common to spilt movies up into 1MB files and store them in various free hosting places, then place a load of links to the component parts somewhere. One common trick was to register for a load of hotmail accounts and send the file as an attachment to a fake email address. It would then sit in your sent folder. You could then share the login details and anyone would be able to download it. The same thing would be possible with gmail, only this time you wouldn't have to split the files. Upload the attachments as drafts.

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail

[luther349]

usenet was still the first place pirates would send there stuff. then it would trickle down into irc then to file sites. with bittorrent they just put there stuff directly on there maybe threw a privet site/tracker at first but then it pops up on puplic ones. so really usenet has lost its user base.

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail

[HarrySquatter]

Google: Go fuck yourself. You want to drag this out to a lawsuit? We'll see who has deeper pockets and greater political clout. USER FREEDOM, ARRR!

I'm pretty sure Disney, Sony, Viacom, News Corp, Comcast and Time Warner (the parent companies of the MPAA studios) combined beat Google in each of those categories by quite a lot.

So long, Usenet.

[Seumas]

Usenet has remained a great resource all these years. Even today. (Look at the wealth of create comp.lang groups). Between ISPs dropping Usenet as part of their service and dedicated usenet services being shutdown under the crush of harassment and threats -- it seems like it's almost time to say our goodbye's to something that really shouldn't be dying. :/

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Vintermann]

Why not?

* In has a distribution model that's suited for extremely slow lines, and less suited for regular ones
* It has virtually no spam protection. This has been an issue for a long time.
* It's not extensible, it will not improve in these areas.

Other than being a single go-to place, what does Usenet really have over a good web forum these days? It's only nostalgia keeping it going. As long as it's archived (and Google's doing that, although their archiving in this area leaves a lot to be desired), little of value is lost. A few communities will have to move, that's about it.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

USENET hasn't been used for discussions since some time in the mid-90s. And yeah, it should be dying. Its model (replicate ALL content all over the internet) is reduntant nowadays. For everything than the alt.bin.* hierarchy that is. I use USENET extensively for downloading stuff since the 90s and I find it a mark of extreme hypocricy when people say it's used for "discussions" or "dissemination of ideas". It's not. It's used for downloading stuff by everyone but a minuscule minority.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[wvmarle]

It's the binaries that have to be dropped. But then many of those newzbin type sites will lose most of their audience I suppose.

And what it has over a web forum: no single point of failure. No need for someone to maintain that one site, that one interface. No need to use a web browser, there are other ways to access it. Easy local archiving if you like.

Spam is an issue, can't deny that.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Vintermann]

For binaries, there are especially many options, most of which are distributed. Just about the only "advantage" Usenet has for those it's that it's relatively inaccessible, and thus hip. I understand some pirate types actually value that.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[wvmarle]

Indeed, all the more reason to remove the binaries from usenet.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[jones_supa]

I wonder what the NNTP server admins like about the huge data usage?

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

The money people pay to access the servers.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[TheRaven64]

I don't get your first argument. What works over a slow line works over a fast line even better. I see no problem.

The problem is latency. It often takes a day or more for a message to be propagated around the usenet network. By the time you reply to a thread, a dozen other people may have posted the same thing, but you won't see their replies until tomorrow because they were all posting to different servers.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[TheRaven64]

ISPs like it because it keeps the traffic on the network. NTL (a cable ISP in the UK, now part of Virgin Media) used to run usenet servers and you could download stuff from them at line speed. The traffic was going directly from their server to the client, and was often mirrored nearer the edge. They stopped, and everyone switched to Bittorrent and their off-network bandwidth spiked to such a degree that they brought it back again a few weeks later. They turned it off again after a few years, but for a long time it was keeping the traffic on their network, and therefore cheap. It also worked quite nicely as a liability shield: an NNTP server is effectively a cache, so they were protected as a common carrier as long as they didn't censor anything, and their customers were only downloading, so weren't liable for distributing copyrighted works.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Mashiki]

You realize that the size of usenet, and retention has done nothing but increase over the last decade right? Cheap storage has pretty much guaranteed that. It's not going anywhere. In 2000 we were at 82GB a day, and in the first month of 2012 we were at 9.29TB a day.

If anything, what's pissed me off more is usenet providers that use hosts who aren't accepting "out of country" credit cards anymore. I was with astraweb for the better part of 6 years(and was with giganews before that), until 2checkout stopped accepting non-american mastercards. Which has left me hunting for a new provider.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

What you're describing hasn't been happening for more than a decade. There is no major ISP that runs NNTP servers nowadays, because the legal scenario you are describing isn't as clear as that. They would be directly liable for hosting copyrighted works, so they stopped running it. An NNTP server, also, is not a cache. It's a mirror, and they wouldn't be protected as a carrier but they would actually be liable as a publisher.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[water-and-sewer]

Usenet is doing fine. It's just the suckers getting weeded out. Go check out the forum at http://dictatorshandbook.net./ On the surface it's a communications forum for commenting on bad governmnets. Underneath it is an INND server reachable via NTTP.

Usenet technology is still useful, and in an age where everyone wants you to post under your real name and link it to everything else you do, say, or buy, I'd say Usenet technology is more indispensable than ever.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[nogginthenog]

Virgin still have a NNTP server - I'm using it right now.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[rb12345]

It looks like Virgin Media at least still do run NNTP servers in the UK if this page is to be believed, although I have not used them in years: http://help.virginmedia.com/system/selfservice.controller?CMD=VIEW_ARTICLE&ARTICLE_ID=3525. Most ISPs were in the habit of dropping the binary groups even 10 years ago on storage and bandwidth grounds, which would also reduce the exposure to copyright issues.

Re:So long, Usenet.

[Sloppy]

It was like that back when you had a slow line, too.

Was good while it lasted..

[lemur3]

This was a neat website, useful.. my usenet downloader even was integrated with the websites bookmark feature.. this was pretty darn cool...

sadly.. once they lost PayPal as a payment option ..the end was nigh. ..I left and i guess others did too..

Re:Was good while it lasted..

[mark_reh]

Losing Paypal isn't a big deal. You can call your credit card company (if you have a card) and ask them to issue a single-use number for you. Then you can pay with your credit card without giving away your actual card number.

Re:Was good while it lasted..

[misexistentialist]

VISA and MC were probably also refusing to allow them to open an account.

Now maybe finally we'll see the end

[Vintermann]

Now maybe finally we'll see the end of torrents split into hundreds of RAR archives.

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end

[willy_me]

Hope not, by splitting into multiple rar files you can prioritize the order that they download. If you can get the first couple of rar files completely downloaded, you can unrar them or play them in VLC to verify you're downloading what you intended to. If it's just one big file it's much harder to preview and it's easy to waste a pile of bandwidth on garbage.

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end

[Vintermann]

My torrent client supports downloading segments in order for preview purposes, if I want to do that.

My rar client, however, I can't convince to unpack half a file.

Also, there are often multiple files, and I only want one.

If you want to keep seeding and use an unpacked version, you need to keep two copies around (especially annoying when it is a 1.4 GB video file which wasn't compressed anything whatsoever by winrar). Meaning most people delete the rar junk. Meaning stuff doesn't get seeded.

Compression in torrents should be done on individual files if you have to do it. These archives should not be further split up. And you shouldn't use that proprietary dinosaur winrar.

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end

[ThatsMyNick]

Scene (the source of the rip) still relies on FTP. As long as the source is compressed and people can verify easily using the sfv file that it really is that particular scene release, rar files are here to stay.
 
And most people dont delete their rar files, they simply use a player like VLC that supports rar files (it even supports incomplete rar files).

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end

[TubeSteak]

My rar client, however, I can't convince to unpack half a file.

If you open up the full WinRar window (instead of right-clicking and choosing 'extract'), there is an option to "keep broken files" when you hit the "extract to" button.

Whenever I have a bad archive, I pull out the full file and use bittorrent to fix the broken section.

Scale down

[u64]

Curb your enthusiasm. Lower your expectations. Maybe they should try scaling down rather than pull the plug and give up.

Re:Scale down

[zootie]

Most newzbin competitors either do NZB aggregation or do direct usenet searches. Newzbin was the only one (I know of) that did both, and did them well in a consistent UI that worked well over such distinct environments.

The minimum working requirements are rather high: a working news feed for headers to keep the database in sync, plus editors to manually create reports (this means a lot of community participation). They probably can't go any lower w/o changing their model radically. It would take a lot of development to do it differently (w/o starting from scratch sans a newsfeed, which is what most competitors do).

Probably the weakest point was the editor system. While you could throw money (hardware) at the technical issues of the newsfeed and database, the creation of reports remained a manual task by volunteers, and the lack of timely report creation was a reason often cited by users leaving the service. Maybe if more of the report creation had been automated a few years ago, it wouldn't have lost so many subscribers (yet, many subscribers left just because of newzbin 1 legal issues, so the investment to automate report creation might have never paid off).

+Bitcoins

[u64]

So what's wrong. Isn't 10% of users still a gain from 0% to 10% ?

Re:Bitcoin

[91degrees]

It's about difficulty for the average consumer to pay with bitcoins, starting form a position of never having heard of them.

Re:Bitcoin

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Personally I hate holding on to bitcoins, their value is subject to wild fluctuations. You never know if somebody's large wallet is about to get hacked and suddenly all of the money you had into them is gone in an instant.

Converting cash to and from bitcoins gets costly as well, so always keeping a low supply "just in case" isn't a good idea either.

Re:Only a problem for binary groups

[Adrian Harvey]

I think you meant www.eternal-september.org

OH NOES!!!!

[DiamondGeezer]

How will I find out what schizophrenics are saying to each other?!!!

Re:What the hell are they talking about?!

[misexistentialist]

Paying anything is already a big inconvenience, any additional obstacle makes purchases even more rare.

Do we still need them?

[jemenake]

There are a small handful of occasions in my life where I happened upon a solution for some common problem and, about a month later, found that someone had just come out with a similar solution, and NZB files were one of those. However, my idea was to have the posting apps upload some kind of manifest after they finished posting the content, while Newsbin had a bunch of mechanical turks busily aggregating the posts by hand.

Now, all of that manual effort was great for providing the critical mass of NZB files so that, nowadays, just about every newsreader supports them (and, in fact, there are a lot of apps which only do those, without any downloading of headers, etc., since it's so much easier to write an app which just takes an XML NZB file and just goes down the list of message-id's and requests them from the server). So, after all of these years of NZB's getting wildly popular, I had assumed that all of the major usenet posting applications had started implementing the original idea I had: just tacking on an NZB after uploading a batch of files.

I don't upload to usenet, so I don't have any experience with the popular binary-upload apps, so... does anybody out there know if they finally upload NZB's? If they do... then do we really need people manually creating NZB's anymore?

Re:Do we still need them?

[zootie]

I also don't post, so I don't know specifics, but looking at headers, most (half?) posts do have an accompanying nzb file, to the point that some search engines exclusively use the accompanying nzb file to find reports. Yet, even with the posters providing a manifest (I've called it that too), sometimes you need to do a raw search because not all posters provide one.

Usenet audience vs Bitcoin audience

[inject_hotmail.com]

Aren't they mostly mutually inclusive?

(no, Bitcoin isn't credible as it's just too hard for 90% of people)

The people that are on usenet should be savvy enough to a) have already heard of BitCoin, and b) know how to use it.

I can't believe that 90% of their users are newbz.

Re:Usenet audience vs Bitcoin audience

[faedle]

The "hard" in BitCoin is at the interface between BitCoin and actual money.

For starters, BitCoin is (by design) a volatile trading market, so from minute to minute the value of a BitCoin (against your local currency) fluctuates. In the past 30 days it's fluctuated by as much as 20% against the USD. "Real" currency markets don't fluctuate quite that dramatically. Compare BitCoin to USD to, say, USD to CAD over the last month. A Canadian merchant can pretty much accept a US Dollar at par value and know that within a couple of pennies he's getting the same value out of the currency.

We haven't even touched upon the fact that BitCoin currency exchanges aren't exactly bastions of security and stability. Most of them have been hacked at some point. There's absolutely no mechanism (by design) in the BitCoin system to "undo" a fraudulent transaction. Most people (rightfully so) aren't going to poke their credit card information into a system that can't guarantee the safety of their "money", and BitCoin has no such safety mechanisms.

Re:Usenet audience vs Bitcoin audience

[luther349]

or the simple fact you spend more in mining hardware even the new low power stuff then its worth. if your not doing anything illagle with bitcoin why are you worried whose watching lol.

Re:Usenet audience vs Bitcoin audience

[luther349]

at least bitcoin goes up and down wile the usd just does down.

Re:Usenet audience vs Bitcoin audience

[Slashdot Parent]

The people that are on usenet should be savvy enough to a) have already heard of BitCoin, and b) know how to use it.

Just because we know how to use BitCoin doesn't mean that we want to. Paying by BitCoin means:

1. Buying bitcoins (which is effort since I already have USD and a credit card) or mining bitcoins, which would cost me more in electricity than I would earn by mining.
2. Owning bitcoins. Bitcoins are difficult to spend (most mercants don't accept BC), fluctuate too much in value as compared with USD, and you need to keep backups of your bank (or use an online "bank", which is subject to hacking).
3. Spending bitcoins. Also, a pain. You need to run the client or trust a "bank". It takes like 10 minutes just to buy something. Can't reverse transactions, so there is no recourse if the seller rips you off.

I think that people who use Usenet for binaries today are those who don't want the inconvenience of: ISP harassment/throttling, partially-seeded files, slow torrent downloads due to asymmetrical up/download bandwidth, legal situation regarding distributing copyrighted works (downloading is much more legal than uploading), hunting down files, etc. They just want to subscribe to a show and have it be there waiting for them to watch. When they download something, they want to have it be there in a few minutes and not have to worry about ratios, communities, reputation, limiters, etc. In other words, they don't want to fuck around with BitCoin.

Re:Bitcoin

[91degrees]

I do subscribe to a usenet service (giganews) and I presume it's at least vaguely similar. I dare say I could work out how to use bitcoin, but I think I'd find learning how everything works, and the hassle of actually buying bitcoins then using them to pay for a service enough of a deterrent to prevent me from bothering.

A lot of people are interested in recent results

[tepples]

There is a also a strong trend to show recent results rather than relevant results

This is intentional because a lot of people are interested in recent results. They may be interested in something they heard about on the news, troubleshooting information for the current version of a computer program rather than an obsolete version, or information on what products are offered now as opposed to six years ago.

MPAA is almost twice as big as Google

[tepples]

You're right. Let's compare the market capitalizations of the six members of the MPAA to that of Google:

• Columbia: SNE ($9.77B)
• Disney: DIS ($88.00B)
• Paramount: VIA.B ($25.92B)
• Twentieth Century Fox: NWS ($58.26B)
• Universal: Joint venture of CMCSA ($98.80B) (51%) and GE ($221.57B) (49%)
• Warner: TWX ($44.79B)
• Total: 9.77+88.00+25.92+58.26+.51*98.80+.49*221.57+44.79 = $385.70 billion market cap for MPAA

This is almost double Google's market cap of $229.48 billion.

Redundancy or diversity?

[tepples]

By the time you reply to a thread, a dozen other people may have posted the same thing, but you won't see their replies until tomorrow because they were all posting to different servers.

At least you get to read a dozen diverse views about how a question might be answered, rather than having people be afraid to say anything for fear of being moderated down as Redundant like on a web board.