If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
Usenet 101: if it's cross-posted to more than two newsgroups it's probably not relevant to any of them. Noted! -- --------------------------------- --- -- - Posted with NewsLeecher v3.9 Final Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet ------------------- ----- ---- -- - |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
In article ,
Mediasetnews wrote: Noted! Note this (a programmer is telling you): 1) breaking threading is anti-social. Learn how to use follow-ups properly 2) Enough of us who participate in Usenet still rely on command-line interfaces in terminal emulators that setting line length greater than 80 characters is ... anti-social. 70 is a nice number. 3) anti-social behavior gets you killfiled. And it would crack me the hell up if your overly enthusiastic pursuit of killfiles got you killfiled. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
... 1) breaking threading is anti-social. Learn how to use follow-ups properly This is actually something he should seriously think about. (Not that the rest isn't important.) If they're filtering out Howedy, fine, because no one follows up to his posts with anything even remotely useful. But, if they're filtering out great chunks from this group, I wonder how appealing the end result will be. And I'm still unclear on *why* a Swiss-cheesy web portal will be a desirable alternative. If people want on-topic information without all the wackos and thread drift, then they can already search Google's archive. -- Shelly http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship) http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
In article ,
Shelly wrote: And I'm still unclear on *why* a Swiss-cheesy web portal will be a desirable alternative. If people want on-topic information without all the wackos and thread drift, then they can already search Google's archive. One of the things I learned looking at Google this morning is that Google splits up a thread into a certain number of articles-per-page, and Jerry's posts are long. Really, really, really long. Which means that if you go into an unfiltered page-oriented webbie mess most of what you're going to see is Jerry's. Plus, a lot of people don't know how to specify filters or don't want to learn, etc. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/regex_square_0.png). I'm personally not interested but I think there's probably a (small) market for this kind of thing. I think the bigger challenge is the impending demise of Usenet, or whatever. I'm not sure there are that many people that care about Usenet anymore, except possibly as a way to transmit pirated media. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
... Which means that if you go into an unfiltered page-oriented webbie mess most of what you're going to see is Jerry's. I don't see Jerry when using Google, because I use tree view with collapsed posts. That said, they've recently done some really unhelpful things to their search interface. Plus, a lot of people don't know how to specify filters or don't want to learn, etc. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/regex_square_0.png). That's over my math-challenged head, but Google makes it pretty easy to specify what you do and don't want. I think you'd have to try pretty hard to get overwhelmed with Howespew, but maybe I underestimate typical users? I think the bigger challenge is the impending demise of Usenet, or whatever. It was a busy place when I first found it, but it's definitely gotten kind of, um, cozy over the past few years. I'm not sure there are that many people that care about Usenet anymore, except possibly as a way to transmit pirated media. And that's getting harder and harder, as more providers dump Usenet. Most of the alternatives I know of don't carry binary groups. -- Shelly http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship) http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
"Shelly" wrote in message
... maybe I underestimate typical users? Or maybe I overestimate them. I guess it's a matter of perspective! -- Shelly http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship) http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
"Melinda Shore" wrote in message ... In article , Shelly wrote: And I'm still unclear on *why* a Swiss-cheesy web portal will be a desirable alternative. If people want on-topic information without all the wackos and thread drift, then they can already search Google's archive. One of the things I learned looking at Google this morning is that Google splits up a thread into a certain number of articles-per-page, and Jerry's posts are long. Really, really, really long. Which means that if you go into an unfiltered page-oriented webbie mess most of what you're going to see is Jerry's. Plus, a lot of people don't know how to specify filters or don't want to learn, etc. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/regex_square_0.png). I'm personally not interested but I think there's probably a (small) market for this kind of thing. I think the bigger challenge is the impending demise of Usenet, or whatever. I'm not sure there are that many people that care about Usenet anymore, except possibly as a way to transmit pirated media. ISPs, and I use the term loosely 8^), are increasingly dropping their newsgroup service, so anybody who doesn't find an independent service is saying bye bye. So yeah, Usenet is probably going to be a shadow of its former self. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
In article ,
Wingnut wrote: ISPs, and I use the term loosely 8^), are increasingly dropping their newsgroup service, so anybody who doesn't find an independent service is saying bye bye. Right. I've recently had several meetings with people from "content providers" (film companies, basically) who are interested in getting service providers to deploy technology to detect protected content on the wire and do one of several things in response when it's detected. They said that they basically got Comcast and a few others to drop Usenet entirely because of the way the binary newsgroups are being used to transport copyrighted material. -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
"Melinda Shore" wrote in message ... In article , Wingnut wrote: ISPs, and I use the term loosely 8^), are increasingly dropping their newsgroup service, so anybody who doesn't find an independent service is saying bye bye. Right. I've recently had several meetings with people from "content providers" (film companies, basically) who are interested in getting service providers to deploy technology to detect protected content on the wire and do one of several things in response when it's detected. They said that they basically got Comcast and a few others to drop Usenet entirely because of the way the binary newsgroups are being used to transport copyrighted material. As I am the chief technical head of an ISP I am pretty confident in explaining this is unmitigated nonsense. Bittorrent today transports an order of magnitude greater amount of copyrighted content than Usenet ever could and that is what the film industry is really worried about. The film companies would have everyone believe the world revolves around them. As for wire-sniffing technology, this is fantasy-land, film industry people are some of the biggest BSers around. If they knew anything at all about the Internet they wouldn't have problems with illegal movie distribution they are having now. The amounts of data that are processed by the major ISP's are awesomly large. And I mean BIG. Not perhaps as big as your typical film company executive's ego, but close. ;-) In order to "detect" anything you have to examine all that data going through the "wire" in the ISP. Well, the ISP's are currently MERELY ROUTING that data (and all routing does is take the traffic from one wire and send it out to another) with hardware that costs in the $100K range - for a single device, not including the yearly service contracts - and any ISP has to spare out routers, besides. So to build this content filter, you START with at least of $100K of hardware JUST TO MOVE THE TRAFFIC. Then add lots and lots and lots of more CPU processing power to look inside the traffic and examine it. And since this magical mythical filtering box that doesen't currently exist isn't going to sell near as many units as a major router model, it's a special-built device that's going to cost quadruple. Only governments have that kind of money - the only filtering of this magnitude currently going on on the Internet are the secret black boxes the NSA puts on the overseas Internet links to look for spies sending data - and overseas links carry a far less amount of data than domestic links. The REAL reason a number of ISPs are dropping Usenet (more specifically, the binary groups in Usenet) is simply that they consume an enormous amout of bandwidth that is mostly wasted. For example someone posts a DVD iso on Usenet. To do so they have to break it up into, say 500 postings. If a couple of those get lost, the entire group of 500 is worthless. But, that group of 500 is 4GB of data right there - data that has done nothing for nobody - not even the illegal pirates - all it's done is cost the service provider money to relay! So what happened is the service providers got together a few years back with the State of New York and created this rubbish bullcrap cover story about fighting child porn. You can read about it he http://www.nystopchildporn.com/ A list of who's doing it and what is affected is he http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.p...binary_problem This allowed the ISP's to either chop out all binary groups or dump Usenet entirely, while giving their pissed-off customers an excuse that would somewhat mollify them. Ted |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
KillFiles Needed
In article ,
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: As I am the chief technical head of an ISP I am pretty confident in explaining this is unmitigated nonsense. They know that. This was a gesture on Comcast's part and showboating on Andrew Cuomo's. The media companies are all over them. In order to "detect" anything you have to examine all that data going through the "wire" in the ISP. Well, yes and no. There are several different approaches to the problem, only a few of which require observing all the data in a given flow. Well, the ISP's are currently MERELY ROUTING that data (and all routing does is take the traffic from one wire and send it out to another) with hardware that costs in the $100K range - for a single device, not including the yearly service contracts - and any ISP has to spare out routers, besides. I believe the argument is that ISPs are making money by selling services that include allowing users to move data. And if you're doing any firewalling at all you're already filtering content. So to build this content filter, you START with at least of $100K of hardware JUST TO MOVE THE TRAFFIC. Then add lots and lots and lots of more CPU processing power to look inside the traffic and examine it. And since this magical mythical filtering box that doesen't currently exist [ ... ] It does exist, actually, and we're working on applications of fast filtering technology. We know how to do extremely fast filtering. The issues here have less to do with technology than it does with the business case and right now there's not a business case for ISPs to do this. This may or may not change depending on changes in the regulatory and legal environment as well as whether or not ISPs want to get into the business of selling content themselves (detect protected content, offer the user the opportunity to buy it legally with the ISP brokering it). The regulatory situation is, clearly, very different in other countries than in the US. Only governments have that kind of money - the only filtering of this magnitude currently going on on the Internet are the secret black boxes the NSA puts on the overseas Internet links to look for spies sending data - and overseas links carry a far less amount of data than domestic links. Wow. Ted! That's a little incorrect, don't you think? -- Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
KillFiles Needed | Mediacetnews | Dog behavior | 16 | December 17th 08 12:18 PM |
KillFiles Needed | Mediasetnews | Dog behavior | 0 | December 16th 08 06:31 PM |
KillFiles Needed | Mediasetnews | Dog behavior | 3 | December 16th 08 06:25 PM |
KillFiles Needed | Mediasetnews | Dog behavior | 2 | December 16th 08 06:00 PM |