RIP Usenet
Monty Parts
people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
with 'stolen stuff'.
Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out one
more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.
But it also means another change in price to the now way less than free
web usage.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp
PN
Richard Crowley
Usenet will only be better with the departure of fools like the
author of that piece. RIP indeed.
GregS
I guess I'll be seeing all of you.
In my opinion, I get much of what I want to know through the Usenet Google database.
usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is a real PITA.
Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I can't spell.
They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
greg
geoff
I don't know how you extrapolate that opinion-piece into the 'end of
USENET'.
Decisions of some ISP to not carry NTTP servers or cache messages (or
binaries) is not quite the same thing. Even legislation for restriction of
filetypes cached or transmitted does not mean the End.
Are you suggesting that thhere will be some worldwide ban on NTTP protocal
traffic ? And whoever doing naughty things won't find an alternative
transport ?
geoff
geoff
> I guess I'll be seeing all of you.
>
> In my opinion, I get much of what I want to know through the Usenet
> Google database.
> usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam
> forum is a real PITA. Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just
> like my newsreader. Except I can't spell.
> They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
The are plenty of legit uses for binaries groups, and sending the same data
via other protocols is not necessarily more efficient.
And who said that a.b..... is any less value to the world than crap on
YouTube, people streaming inane TV drivel, or the other low-rent content
that the internet has spawned ?
geoff
Soundhaspriority
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:qZidnXiarqW8ow_V...@giganews.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
"Title V of the 1996 Act is the Communications Decency Act, aimed at
regulating Internet indecency and obscenity, but was ruled unconstitutional
by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. Portions of
Title V remain, including the Good Samaritan Act, which protects ISPs from
liability for third party content on their services, and legal definitions
of the Internet."
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
jakdedert
more and more ISPs drop the service. Sure there are other providers,
but for myself, I'm probably not going pursue that avenue...attractive
as it may be. Having an extra bill to pay every month is not something
I relish; especially for something I now get for 'free'.
According to an administrator at BellSouths usenet farm, their traffic
dropped by 2/3 when they axed the alt.bin and alt.bain groups. Somebody
in the front office is bound to notice the change in their bottom line.
There is no downside. The drop in subscribers has to be more than
offset by the cost savings.
jak
jakdedert
tacitly admitted liability by dropping the alt.bin and alt.bain
hierarchies. Given that there are still thousands of usenet groups
which carry kiddie porn (search your reader for groups containing the
term 'lolita'), they could still be held liable, if true.
Of course we all know it's not 'for the kids', rather the bottom line....
jak
Richard Crowley
> While I think it's premature, it may very well be the end of usenet, as
> more and more ISPs drop the service. Sure there are other providers, but
> for myself, I'm probably not going pursue that avenue...attractive as it
> may be. Having an extra bill to pay every month is not something I
> relish; especially for something I now get for 'free'.
10 Euro per year is "free" for all practical purposes.
individual.net (in Berlin) auto-debits my plastic once
a year and no hassles with "extra bills to pay every month".
geoff
> I'm not a lawyer, but there is some support for the idea that the ISPs
> tacitly admitted liability by dropping the alt.bin and alt.bain
> hierarchies. Given that there are still thousands of usenet groups
> which carry kiddie porn (search your reader for groups containing the
> term 'lolita'), they could still be held liable, if true.
Well there is plenty on the http WWW too - best close that down too ! And
paper printing.
geoff
geoff
> According to an administrator at BellSouths usenet farm, their traffic
> dropped by 2/3 when they axed the alt.bin and alt.bain groups. Somebody in
> the front office is bound to notice the change in their
> bottom line. There is no downside. The drop in subscribers has to
> be more than offset by the cost savings.
My ISP had the same theory wrt ferw users. But as there is actually no real
'cost' in running the service, apart from disk space and maybe some trafic,
just dropping the binaries would have been an all-round gain for everybody
(apart from binaries users - are they are NOT all crims or paedophiles).
geoff
Soundhaspriority
<monty...@montyparts.com> wrote:
> It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
> people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
> with 'stolen stuff'.
I like to think of myself as primarily responsible for the destruction of
Usenet.
You're welcome, BTW.
http://robertmorein.blogspot.com/
"I don't really have a replacement career, it's a very gnawing thing."
Robert Morein
Dresher, PA
(310) 237-6511
(215) 646-4894
David Morgan (MAMS)
"jakdedert" <jakd...@bellsouth.net> wrote...
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
> > "geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
> >> Monty Parts wrote:
> >>> It looks like it's all coming to a untimely end. Apparently not enough
> >>> people are using it, and a bunch that are are clogging the bandwidth
> >>> with 'stolen stuff'.
> >>>
> >>> Now I'm not saying that people aren't schlepping software and movies
> >>> around...but this just reeks of the gubernment attempting to cut out
> >>> one more part of their citizens lives that they can't control.
> >>>
> >>> But it also means another change in price to the now way less than
> >>> free web usage.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326848,00.asp
I think this article is pretty much exactly what the 'propaganda machine'
had directed that it be. The powers that be would like everyone to
happily believe that this is just a way to eliminate the pornography
and that we should all be happy little campers to have more of our
freedoms removed because now we are all much <cough-cough>
"safer" because of it.
> >> I don't know how you extrapolate that opinion-piece into the 'end of
> >> USENET'.
Because it's a deep, deep cut into the vitality of FREE and OPEN discussion.
For a moment, stop looking at the subject as it's being addressed
by the media and those proliferating the decision, and look at what
this _really_ means to the most basic of rights and freedoms as
applies to ordinary communications.
Sure.... the binaries are filled with vast amounts of the world's less
moral and less appealing side.... stolen music, stolen films and
videos, stolen code, stolen software, stolen operating systems,
broken encryption, hacked intellectual property, child porn and
other trash of sub-Neanderthal and perverted interest.
I'd have no problem at all if the binaries were completed eliminated...
but somewhere along that line, we'd be keeping someone from sharing
something of legitimate value or interest. To me, it would be worth that
loss to cease all binaries groups, given the vast number of ways to get
those sorts of files across the globe outside of NNTP. But it's faaar
greater than just the elimination of binaries and smut.
> >> Decisions of some ISP to not carry NTTP servers or cache messages (or
> >> binaries) is not quite the same thing. Even legislation for restriction of
> >> filetypes cached or transmitted does not mean the End.
This is just one more step (IMHO) of eliminating the people's ability
to communicate, discuss, and organize... and could easily be setting
the groundwork for yet further restrictions on the public, both in the
USA and abroad.
In 2003 and 2004, I was virtually chased away from this group for
my propensity to discuss politics... and now, my access to freely
do so on the appropriate groups has been terminated by my own,
rather well paid NNTP host.
> >> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
> >> traffic?
If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
> >> And whoever doing naughty things won't find an alternative
> >> transport?
Of course they will... but there you go again... pretending that this
is only about eliminating the darker side of UseNet. It's not. It's
about our freedom to use the media as it was intended... for free
and open discourse. The portion of NNTP devoted to interests
such as those is *extremely* small.... but it's ALL been dumped.
The termination of the "alt" hierarchy of news groups by major
providers of NNTP services across the nation, has not just touched
on the 'lolita' factor, but it has virtually eliminated some 80% of ALL
political and religious discussion.
Political discussion *terminated* on a massive scale.
> > I don't see what pressure New York State can actually exert. See
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
You forget then, that New York State is where the vast majority of
laws regarding commerce are passed and then filtered virtually
directly to Washington DC and onward into the mainstream US.
Decisions made in the state of NY, often move on to affect the
entire globe.
> > "Title V of the 1996 Act is the Communications Decency Act, aimed at
> > regulating Internet indecency and obscenity, but was ruled unconstitutional
> > by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. Portions of
> > Title V remain, including the Good Samaritan Act, which protects ISPs from
> > liability for third party content on their services, and legal definitions
> > of the Internet."
We all know where the state of electronic communications is today.
It is massively monitored from any number of directions and by any
number of guilty parties. Our e-mail communications can be stored
indefinitely, monitored for key words, and archived if deemed relevant
to some higher-up's particular 'interest'.
Hell, they make TV shows about busting child sex offenders. And
where do their 'leads' come from, and what is the 'source' of the
information used to corral these freaks?? The internet and e-mail
correspondence.
It's a simple matter these days to 'take care' of these sorts of issues.
The bigger picture, however, is much harder to keep under 'wraps'
while it's being deployed.... so the cover story of 'Lolitas' and stolen
property is used to keep the masses sedated while their freedoms
and rights are torn away.
Your Congress just passed a Bill that assures that the providers of
these services can not be held liable for the fact that their complicit
eavesdropping and spying is walking all over the Bill Of Rights and
parts of the US Constitution - thereby further enabling the government
to bring to life the whole 'Big Brother IS Watching' syndrome while
thumbing their noses at citizens in the process.
> I'm not a lawyer, but there is some support for the idea that the ISPs
> tacitly admitted liability by dropping the alt.bin and alt.bain
> hierarchies. Given that there are still thousands of usenet groups
> which carry kiddie porn (search your reader for groups containing the
> term 'lolita'), they could still be held liable, if true.
You too, eh?
Forget the "Lolitas" and the hacked intellectual property for a few
minutes and look at the big picture. Here we are, just 90 days from
a national election that could make or break the future of America
both as a global power and as a financially stable entity.... and the
vast majority of open discussion of political interest has been
completely eliminated from major access providers. Sure... you
can go elsewhere and pay for additional services, but then our
discourse is appropriately funneled through fewer access points
thus making the monitoring of such discussion far easier.
> Of course we all know it's not 'for the kids', rather the bottom line....
It goes much farther than just being about profits. Although another
related point for consideration is the fact that the vast majority of
telephone providers of internet and NNTP access, just raised their
prices a few weeks before eliminating a large chunk of the 'product'
which they were offering for the price we paid. The end result: higher
prices for fewer services.
Say nothing of the ordinary special interests of those who relied on
major ISP and NNTP providers for the further enjoyment of their
personal hobbies.... boating, skiing, canoeing, stamp collecting,
acting and artists fan clubs, automobile interests, collectibles,
and the list goes on and on and on... this even included the
cessation of the availability of Microsoft newsgroups on many
servers. The percentage of the "alt" groups which were engaged
in the less acceptable portions of UseNet activity was actually
EXTREMELY small..... but the political aspects of silencing
dissent and discussion have taken the lead in this decision
(IMHO, of course).
DM
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be
in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-- James Madison
"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
-- James Madison
David Morgan (MAMS)
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote in message
> Well there is plenty on the http WWW too - best close that down too ! And
> paper printing.
NOT funny.
;-)
Soundhaspriority
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:zfukk.544$aA5.279@trnddc05...
but federal law still preempts state law. The Good Samaritan Act shields
ISPs as long as they exercise no control over the content. Even if the Good
Samaritan Act were repealed, such would not be retroactive.
At the present time, the only operative legal mechanism is the threat of
lawsuit. The State of NY has the money to sue anybody they want, a very
inconvenient proposition, even if the lawsuits are later thrown out. It's
the only reason the ISPs have to discontinue.
>
>> > "Title V of the 1996 Act is the Communications Decency Act, aimed at
>> > regulating Internet indecency and obscenity, but was ruled
>> > unconstitutional
>> > by the U.S. Supreme Court for violating the First Amendment. Portions
>> > of
>> > Title V remain, including the Good Samaritan Act, which protects ISPs
>> > from
>> > liability for third party content on their services, and legal
>> > definitions
>> > of the Internet."
>
> We all know where the state of electronic communications is today.
> It is massively monitored from any number of directions and by any
> number of guilty parties. Our e-mail communications can be stored
> indefinitely, monitored for key words, and archived if deemed relevant
> to some higher-up's particular 'interest'.
>
> Hell, they make TV shows about busting child sex offenders. And
> where do their 'leads' come from, and what is the 'source' of the
> information used to corral these freaks?? The internet and e-mail
> correspondence.
>
[snip]
Dave, you're a very political guy. You draw far reaching conclusions. Nobody
can write history in advance. I understand and share your concerns, but your
conclusions are a coin flip.
I have a similar concern about laptop searches. Visitors to certain Asian
destinations are subject to drive imaging or seizure upon return to the U.S.
Apparently, the primary motivation is to stop "sex tourism." In the name of
this, the U.S. Customs Service has constitutional authority to seize your
laptop and copy your private data. I am bothered by this. Sex crimes are a
horrible thing, but I don't want to give U.S. Customs access to my data.
Every 15 years or so, the Body Politic rebalances the concerns of crime
versus privacy. As the Republican governance of this country appears poised
to end soon, you may be pleasantly surprised at the next swing of the
pendulum.
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:iYOdnZjZ5YxA6g_V...@giganews.com...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
> news:zfukk.544$aA5.279@trnddc05...
> > The termination of the "alt" hierarchy of news groups by major
> > providers of NNTP services across the nation, has not just touched
> > on the 'lolita' factor, but it has virtually eliminated some 80% of ALL
> > political and religious discussion.
> >
> > Political discussion *terminated* on a massive scale.
> Dave, you're a very political guy. You draw far reaching conclusions.
I observe the obvious and state an opinion.
> Nobody can write history in advance. I understand and share
> your concerns, but your conclusions are a coin flip.
There is no "flip of the coin" in the fact that binaries can be
filtered and terminated with ease. There was no qualifying
reason for the massive termination of some 35,000 legitimate
newsgroups in the "alt" hierarchy by virtually all major providers
across the USA.
Soundhaspriority
"David Morgan (MAMS)" <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Richard Crowley
> There is no "flip of the coin" in the fact that binaries can be
> filtered and terminated with ease. There was no qualifying
> reason for the massive termination of some 35,000 legitimate
> newsgroups in the "alt" hierarchy by virtually all major providers
> across the USA.
350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
properly in the traditional hierarchy.
AOL and Google are as much to blame as anyone.
A congenital "defect" in the design of Usenet was that
nodes would be managed by conscientious individuals
with reasonable judgment. Enter the budget-skimping
big corporations, (and the scofflaw operators like
buzzardnews) and you see what happens.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message...
> If they filter, the protection of the Good Samaritan Act is removed.
Binaries are filtered from this group, are they not ?
jakdedert
(former) BellSouth admin who monitors the BellSouth usenet support group.
Just as worrisome:
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-9994159-46.html>
"The major national cable providers are all to sign a troubling yet
major censorship deal with a private anti-child porn organization. The
deal would give the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) carte blanche power to issue a takedown of any customer's
content hosted on a cable provider's servers.
The group will provide each cable company with a list of Web site
addresses that they believe contain child porn. The cable companies will
then, per the agreement, scrub the content from their servers."
This is not government. They've taken an end-run around any due
process. This is a private organization--the same one behind the
alt.bin/alt.bain decision takedown--pressuring commercial entities to
control content. Once they decide *your* or *my* website is
objectionable, per the agreement, the ISP will simply make us disappear.
Since it's a private agreement, no law has been broken. No government
entity is involved. There is no recourse, no due process.
If it was just kiddie porn that was involved, it would be one thing.
But the AT&T action on usenet proves that they're willing to throw out
the baby along with the bathwater. MOST of the content blocked from
their servers had nothing to do with porn.
We can only vote with our pocketbooks; but they've been pretty thorough.
In many cases, they've tied up the only providers in large areas.
There's no place else to go...and it's just beginning.
jak
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message...
> 350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.
> If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
> properly in the traditional hierarchy.
Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
an equal period of time?
jakdedert
convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
appear on your computer.
For the most part, users themselves have policed the prohibition against it.
jak
Laurence Payne
<jakd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
>convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
>decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
>point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
>appear on your computer.
A lot of servers see the lack of the binaries flag on a newsgroup as
an instruction to strip attachments. But let's not argue the point.
Try attaching a file, people can report whether it comes through.
I'll try attaching one to this message.
Eeyore
GregS wrote:
> usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum is a real PITA.
> Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except I can't spell.
100% agreed.
> They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.
Graham
GregS
I have never used binaries. I have always uploaded stuff to some web space
and just reffered the URL. I have two providers offering free space
and right now I have 300 Gb on a paid site.
grge
Scott Dorsey
Depends on whether your ISP is competent or not, and how competent the
folks upstream are. My ISP dumps binaries and multiposted spam. Others
many not.
Posting binaries to a discussion group is very rude and any well-run
news server will dump them to keep their disk space demands under control.
But not all news servers are well-run.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Scott Dorsey
It hasn't. Altnet started up as an alternative to traditional Big Eight
Usenet by people who thought the requirements to create new groups were
excessively strict.
Consequently there are a LOT of alt. groups, and while it is easy to
create one, it is damn near impossible to get rid of one.
A lot of Usenet admins refused to carry altnet... many still do.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2008-08-01 kAzkk.793$wS4.593@trnddc03 said:
>In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
>convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
>decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to
>prove the point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this
>post, it would appear on your computer.
>For the most part, users themselves have policed the prohibition
>against it.
has the weight of the actual administrators or authorities
behind them. FOr years we've had that weight.
WItness the twit kid a few years ago that posted jpegs of
Shania Twain with his messages in this group while he
insulted everybody here. WHen we told him to cease with the
binaries he reacted with anger and posted more binaries.
COmplaints flowed into shaw.ca and finally, byebye dumb kid.
SElf policing works as long as the authorities are
interested in following up. Same has happened in ham radio.
For years you could dial up the fcc monitoring centers if
somebody was egregiously violating rules and doing the
malicious interference bit. tHis was especially true if you
were working frequencies such as the maritime mobile service
network where emergency traffic was likely to appear. Iirc
you're a ham Jack, so you might recall the case of that
schoenbaum guy in the U.S> virgin islands.
HE lost his license for the better part of a decade as he
fought his way through the appeals process and finally did
the "please please I won't do that anymore" bit to get it
back.
MOst of these large corporations won't mind the demise of
usenet, including the hierarchies other than the alt groups.
THey'd rather outsource any technical support to phone
drones in the third world and do nothing but sell bandwidth.
Losing nntp lightens their load and makes those who would
wish to limit free and open discourse very happy, a win win
situation for them.
IF newsadmins were really interested in the continued
viability of the system they'd route around google.
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
Richard Crowley
>> If they filter, the protection of the Good Samaritan Act is removed.
>
> Binaries are filtered from this group, are they not ?
No. "Filtering" means selective transmission (or not)
of content, message by message. Or stripping parts
of messages (such as binary attachments) before
forwarding them.
This newsgroup (as >80% of Usenet newsgroups)
was chartered as text-only and our use of it is tacit
indication that we agree to the specifications.
Binary attachments have actually been tried in this
newsgroup before and *some* NNTP servers store
an forward the extra data. It is not automatically stripped
out in many (most?) cases. It relies on the good-faith
of users to control themselves and live within the rules.
Of course, if there was widespread abuse in a text-
only newsgroup, NNTP servers would just stop
carrying the abused newsgroup, and that would be
the ultimate "filtering".
Operators of NNTP servers must budget their
disk space for the number of newsgroups they
carry, the retention time, and the average volume
of traffic on the newsgroups. Abusing text-only
newsgroups with large attachments plays havoc
with this disk-space management. Unless the
NNTP server manager has some special interest
in a particular newsgroup, it is just one of thousands
that s/he must deal with and it is an easy decision
to just drop the abusive ones.
Some Usenet providers (such as individual.net)
don't carry binary newsgroups at all so they can
provide better coverage (both breadth and depth)
of the text-only newsgroups.
IMHO, in the modern context of the internet and
the WWW, binary newsgroups are obsolete hold-
overs from a pre-historic era. Most of them are
blatant abusers of intellectual property. Good
riddance to them.
Richard Crowley
>
>> 350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
>
> My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.
You used the adjective "legitimate". Surely you are not
claiming that all "46,000" alt newsgroups are legitimate?
I'd wager that 10% would be a very generous estimate.
Half of them likely have nothing but junk (spam) content.
>> If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
>> properly in the traditional hierarchy.
>
> Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
> an equal period of time?
No, it has not.
Richard Crowley
It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.
Laurence Payne
>
>I'll try attaching one to this message.
So, who got it? Richard?
Richard Crowley
>>I'll try attaching one to this message.
>
> So, who got it? Richard?
Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
Supernews, or Individual.net
Laurence Payne
OK. Did ANYONE get it?
philicorda
It came through here. NTL/Virgin whatever servers. I believe they
subcontract their Usenet service to a company in the Americas at the
moment.
I wonder what the answer is meant to be to that question written on the
bus.
GoA...@ao1.com
>It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
>It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.
But then, why are you here?
I'm always impressed with lightweights who would deny others valuation of
something they themselves don't use.
Richard Crowley
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
>>It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.
>
> But then, why are you here?
If by "here" you mean r.a.p, I am here for the chartered
function, text discussion of audio topics.
> I'm always impressed with lightweights who would deny
> others valuation of something they themselves don't use.
I think you have made a faulty assumption of what the topic
is, here. We were discussing whether *binary newsgroups*
are still necessary in the age of internet and WWW. r.a.p
is NOT a binary newsgroup (Mr. Payne's experiment
notwithstanding. :-)
Since you snipped the antecedent of "it", you lost the
context. I'm NOT impressed by lightweights who don't
bother to read the entire thread before spouting off.
I've been active on Usenet for >20 years. How long
have YOU been using it?
Lucky
> I wonder what the answer is meant to be to that question written on the
> bus.
"Yes, I'll give you your t-shirt later".
Les Cargill
I've never used the binaries groups, but text posts age out.
Still, seems a reasonable way to transmit data - it doesn't
require contracting for server space. I'm not sure NNTP
would do for commercial purposes.
The WWW for discussion is completely lousy. Has no real
redeeming characteristics, IMO. NNTP based discussion is a
commons; web fora become somebody's fiefdom.
--
Les Cargill
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message news:49b694dnd1o0g5c1a...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> >I'll try attaching one to this message.
>
> So, who got it? Richard?
Nope..... no attachment here. (Verizon, Texas).
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote...
> OK. Did ANYONE get it?
Filters are as active as ever.
Les Cargill
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message news:03k594hjj4qglpssl...@4ax.com...
Now THIS is odd.... what did you do differently this time?
Because it _did_ show up this time.
Hmmmmmmmm :-(
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> > "Richard Crowley" wrote in message...
> >> 350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
> > My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.
> You used the adjective "legitimate". Surely you are not
> claiming that all "46,000" alt newsgroups are legitimate?
> I'd wager that 10% would be a very generous estimate.
> Half of them likely have nothing but junk (spam) content.
Or empty all together. Maybe that adjective was inappropriate,
but it certainly applies to thousands (possibly tens of thousands)
of groups in the "alt" hierarchy.
Yes... like Scott said... once the "alt" has been started, it's virtually
impossible to remove it. A high percentage of them are long since
abandoned since they were related to a specific subject or current
event.
> >> If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
> >> properly in the traditional hierarchy.
> > Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
> > an equal period of time?
> No, it has not.
It's still a dozen or more years old, is it not?
Why was it necessary to completely eliminate access ??
Scott Dorsey
Not if you injected it at giganews. They strip them, like a well-run
site should.
0jun...@bellsouth.net
for abusers to know which servers don't actively filter
binaries and utilize that information to further erode the
quality of text groups.
Hence, .... I won't say either way.
Richard Crowley
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Eeyore" wrote...
>>> GregS wrote:
>>>> usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum
>>>> is a real PITA.
>>>> Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except
>>>> I can't spell.
>>> 100% agreed.
>>>
>>>> They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
>>> Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.
>>
>> It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
>> It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.
>
> I've never used the binaries groups,
I've downloaded a few things from binaries groups, but they
are clearly anachronistric in today's landscape.
> but text posts age out.
All Usenet content "ages out" which is why DejaNews (and
now Google) operate an archive. Binary content ages out
much faster (sometimes hours vs. weeks or months for text)
because of the sheer volume vs. server capacity.
> Still, seems a reasonable way to transmit data - it doesn't
> require contracting for server space.
Sure it does. It just requires *different* contracting for
server space. Just because *you* don't have to contract
for the server space doesn't mean it just springs to life
by itself.
> I'm not sure NNTP would do for commercial purposes.
Agreed. But for the kind of things Usenet is traditionally
used for, there are plenty of free web-based places to share
binary content that are much more straightforward and
convienent than breaking content up into a string of little
yyenc "messages".
> The WWW for discussion is completely lousy. Has no real
> redeeming characteristics, IMO. NNTP based discussion is a
> commons; web fora become somebody's fiefdom.
It would be quite possible to make a web-based portal that
was as easy, simple and fast as traditional client newsreaders,
but there appears to be no incentive for anyone to do that.
David F. Cox
I am on virginmedia - it did not come through
Richard Crowley
> "Richard Crowley" wrote in message...
>> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
>> >> 350, I'd believe, maybe even 3500 at a stretch.
>
>> > My ISP listed 46,000 available newsgroups until a month ago.
>
>> You used the adjective "legitimate". Surely you are not
>> claiming that all "46,000" alt newsgroups are legitimate?
>> I'd wager that 10% would be a very generous estimate.
>> Half of them likely have nothing but junk (spam) content.
>
> Or empty all together. Maybe that adjective was inappropriate,
> but it certainly applies to thousands (possibly tens of thousands)
> of groups in the "alt" hierarchy.
>
> Yes... like Scott said... once the "alt" has been started, it's virtually
> impossible to remove it. A high percentage of them are long since
> abandoned since they were related to a specific subject or current
> event.
>
>> >> If they are THAT "legitimate" then let them get established
>> >> properly in the traditional hierarchy.
>
>> > Are you saying that the "alt" segment hasn't been around for
>> > an equal period of time?
>
>> No, it has not.
>
> It's still a dozen or more years old, is it not?
It's not the age, but the form of creation and management
(or rather the lack thereof) that is the issue.
> Why was it necessary to completely eliminate access ??
It wasn't *necessary*. It was _convienent_ to the corporate
gerbs who would rather not deal with Usenet at all. They
could just have easily dropped the troublesome *binaries*
newsgrops and left the text-based ones. But it was so
easy for them to just delete alt.*
jakdedert
>> I'll try attaching one to this message.
>
> So, who got it? Richard?
AT&T...I got it.
jak
Les Cargill
> "Les Cargill" wrote ...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "Eeyore" wrote...
>>>> GregS wrote:
>>>>> usenet is very efficient, and trying to logon and join every dam forum
>>>>> is a real PITA.
>>>>> Usenet is just plain simple and direct, just like my newsreader. Except
>>>>> I can't spell.
>>>> 100% agreed.
>>>>
>>>>> They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
>>>> Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.
>>> It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
>>> It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.
>> I've never used the binaries groups,
>
> I've downloaded a few things from binaries groups, but they
> are clearly anachronistric in today's landscape.
>
I really don't know why that would be, but ... okay. :) I've
exchanged recorded parts with clients via MIME attachment to
email; NNTP seems a similar choice.
I offered to mail a CD as a backstop, but after a while, they
just used the (lame encoded, VBR V -1 version - not that
much difference betwixt them ) mp3.
>> but text posts age out.
>
> All Usenet content "ages out" which is why DejaNews (and
> now Google) operate an archive. Binary content ages out
> much faster (sometimes hours vs. weeks or months for text)
> because of the sheer volume vs. server capacity.
>
Well... I think they *should* be ephemeral. The archives
never seemed to be all that useful to me. And I don't
think the binaries show up on Google...
One is a river, another is a lake.
>> Still, seems a reasonable way to transmit data - it doesn't
>> require contracting for server space.
>
> Sure it does. It just requires *different* contracting for
> server space. Just because *you* don't have to contract
> for the server space doesn't mean it just springs to life
> by itself.
>
Of course not - but if one million people have a 100 MB each
to use as transient transfer space, that same function could
most likely be fulfilled by a tenth that amount (if not less )
on a common NNTP server - especially if it ages out. Very
probably much less than that.
And this ignores things like torrents - never used those,
either.
>> I'm not sure NNTP would do for commercial purposes.
>
> Agreed. But for the kind of things Usenet is traditionally
> used for, there are plenty of free web-based places to share
> binary content that are much more straightforward and
> convienent than breaking content up into a string of little
> yyenc "messages".
>
My understanding is that there are specialized newsreaders that
make that transparent. With WWW, it's really just FTP...
>> The WWW for discussion is completely lousy. Has no real
>> redeeming characteristics, IMO. NNTP based discussion is a
>> commons; web fora become somebody's fiefdom.
>
> It would be quite possible to make a web-based portal that
> was as easy, simple and fast as traditional client newsreaders,
> but there appears to be no incentive for anyone to do that.
>
>
Why bother? There's Usenet. You know as well as I do that this is
simply tech thrash - people feel the need to reinvent parallel
technologies just to have something to do. Part of that is the
myth of the wunderkind, part of it is the need to continue to
have things to report on. The old stuff was done based on
sound principles; the new stuff *isn't*. And it's brittle.
But the real value of Usenet used to be like when I was trying
to get a computer to dual-boot Win95 and Linux, back in the Old Days -
found a cat on one of the comp.* groups that pointed me to detailed
instructions. Even with Google, I'm not sure the Web based stuff
could possibly replace that. Websites come and go....
--
Les Cargill
Scott Dorsey
>
>It wasn't *necessary*. It was _convienent_ to the corporate
>gerbs who would rather not deal with Usenet at all. They
>could just have easily dropped the troublesome *binaries*
>newsgrops and left the text-based ones. But it was so
>easy for them to just delete alt.*
ISPs want to spend as little money as possible on customers and make as
much money as possible from them.
Once upon a time, the quality of the news service was the number one
issue for an ISP. Potential customers would ask the sales guys how
many hops off of inhp4 the site was.
These days the Web has become the killer application and only a small
fraction of ISP customers even know Usenet exists, so many larger ISPs
have pretty much stopped maintaining their servers properly.
A lot of well-run smaller servers haven't carried binaries ever. Some
carry alt. groups when customers specifically ask for them only. When
a new group is created, the admin decides if he wants his server to carry
it.
Poorer servers tend to be run on automatic. When a new group is created,
it is automatically added. The admin is too busy doing fifty other things
to tailor the group lists down and discard unread ones. He's usually
some other network guy detailed to run the news server in his spare time.
Panix, by the way, has one hell of a great news service.
Laurence Payne
<fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>Now THIS is odd.... what did you do differently this time?
>
>Because it _did_ show up this time.
>
>Hmmmmmmmm :-(
There's no "this time". I only sent it once.
Lucky
> There's no "this time". I only sent it once.
I didn't see it that time either.
Joe Kotroczo
48934b18$0$5935$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com, "Les Cargill"
<lcar...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
(...)
>>>> They should have got rid of binaries long ago.
>>> Us electronics guys find it very useful to distribute schematics.
>>
>> It was the only way back before the internet and WWW.
>> It is now an anachronistic holdover from an extinct era.
>>
>
> I've never used the binaries groups, but text posts age out.
> Still, seems a reasonable way to transmit data - it doesn't
> require contracting for server space. I'm not sure NNTP
> would do for commercial purposes.
It's a very inefficient way to transmit data. A binary posted in a newsgroup
ends up on thousands of newsservers, takes up diskspace on each of these,
and uses up an incredible amount of bandwidth.
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Joe Kotroczo
"geoff" <ge...@nospam-paf.co.nz> wrote:
> jakdedert wrote:
>> According to an administrator at BellSouths usenet farm, their traffic
>> dropped by 2/3 when they axed the alt.bin and alt.bain groups. Somebody in
>> the front office is bound to notice the change in their
>> bottom line. There is no downside. The drop in subscribers has to
>> be more than offset by the cost savings.
>
> My ISP had the same theory wrt ferw users. But as there is actually no real
> 'cost' in running the service, apart from disk space and maybe some trafic,
> just dropping the binaries would have been an all-round gain for everybody
> (apart from binaries users - are they are NOT all crims or paedophiles).
According to the usenet article on wikipedia, the volume of a full newsfeed
is 3.8 Terabyte per day. That's 3800 Gigabyte per day.
That's not a number that sounds like "no real cost" and "maybe some
traffic"!
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Scott Dorsey
Yes, and almost all of that is in the binaries groups. If you carry only
the Big Eight, it's still under 100 Mb/day.
It's not like the days when I had the whole news spool on a 10Mb RL03
disk pack and didn't have to expire messages before a week was up. But
it's not crazy, except for the binaries.
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:20:18 -0500, jakdedert
> <jakd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
> >convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
> >decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
> >point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
> >appear on your computer.
>
> A lot of servers see the lack of the binaries flag on a newsgroup as
> an instruction to strip attachments. But let's not argue the point.
> Try attaching a file, people can report whether it comes through.
>
> I'll try attaching one to this message.
My expereince is that many servers will let small attachments say up to
20kbytes through.
Graham
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
> [Image]
Came through here (astraweb)
Graham
Eeyore
Richard Crowley wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" wrote...
> >>I'll try attaching one to this message.
> >
> > So, who got it? Richard?
>
> Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
> Supernews, or Individual.net
Look for the 1/1 part of the message.
Graham
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:43:35 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>
> >"Laurence Payne" wrote...
> >>>I'll try attaching one to this message.
> >>
> >> So, who got it? Richard?
> >
> >Didn't come through on either of my NNTP services,
> >Supernews, or Individual.net
>
> OK. Did ANYONE get it?
Look for the 1/1 part of the message.
Graham
Eeyore
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > >I'll try attaching one to this message.
> >
> > So, who got it? Richard?
>
> Nope..... no attachment here. (Verizon, Texas).
Look for the 1/1 part of the message. (old technique)
Graham
Eeyore
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote
>
> Now THIS is odd.... what did you do differently this time?
>
> Because it _did_ show up this time.
>
> Hmmmmmmmm :-(
It's an older method of posting binaries 0/1 is the text - 1/1 is the attachment
Graham
Eeyore
"David F. Cox" wrote:
> "Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote
>
> > On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:20:18 -0500, jakdedert
> > <jakd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >>In most cases, the only thing filtering binaries from any group is
> >>convention. In fact, to prove the point, shortly after the AT&T
> >>decision, I posted a few small binaries on text groups just to prove the
> >>point. I have no doubt that if I attached a jpeg to this post, it would
> >>appear on your computer.
> >
> > A lot of servers see the lack of the binaries flag on a newsgroup as
> > an instruction to strip attachments. But let's not argue the point.
> > Try attaching a file, people can report whether it comes through.
> >
> > I'll try attaching one to this message.
>
> I am on virginmedia - it did not come through
Look for the 1/1 part of the message. (old technique)
Graham
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
But you used the 0/1 and 1/1 convention which shows as 2 posts.
Graham
Richard Crowley
Only saw *your response* to the 1/1 message.
Original was not propagated.
Chris Hornbeck
<rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>Only saw *your response* to the 1/1 message.
>Original was not propagated.
Pretty much the same here, on AT&T copper. Of
course, I *can* watch the metal dripping out of
the phone lines today. Tomorrow's predicted to be
hotter, so... Sayanara, Suckers, See y'all in the
next world,
Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck
Eeyore
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>
> >Only saw *your response* to the 1/1 message.
> >Original was not propagated.
>
> Pretty much the same here, on AT&T copper. Of
> course, I *can* watch the metal dripping out of
> the phone lines today. Tomorrow's predicted to be
> hotter, so... Sayanara, Suckers, See y'all in the
> next world,
Clearly different new servers treat these matters in subtly different
ways.
Graham
Chris Hornbeck
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> AT&T copper. Of
>> course, I *can* watch the metal dripping out of
>> the phone lines today. Tomorrow's predicted to be
>> hotter, so...
>
>Clearly different news servers treat these matters in
>subtly different ways.
Arf! So the William Gibson/ Bruce Sterling world of
"Black Ice" has (already) happened. Yikes! (But not
as surprised as I wouldda liketa been...)
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Laurence Payne" <l...@laurencepayne.co.uk> wrote in message news:iir69453nbha5fbdj...@4ax.com...
OK... my server sux... ;-)
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4893BC2B...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> > [Image]
>
> Came through here.
>
> Let me attach one.
Interesting... I'm quite certain that I haven't seen binaries in this
group except on the rarest of ocassions... and today, after all
these NNTP changes by Veraisin (hot here today, too), suddenly
I get two on the same day.
Verizon is obviously up to something... It's a conspiracy..... ;-)
However, when I responded to Lawrence's post, the binary was
instantly dropped from the reply... while yours appears to have
remained attached. I'd be doing everyone a favor if I deleted,
but I'm curious to see if it's filtered going in the other direction.
(I won't do this again).
DM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Crowley
>> "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" wrote:
>> >Now THIS is odd.... what did you do differently this time?
>> >Because it _did_ show up this time.
>> >
>> >Hmmmmmmmm :-(
>>
>> There's no "this time". I only sent it once.
>
> OK... my server sux... ;-)
David, there's likely nothing wrong with your server.
It was sent as two messages (0/1 and 1/1), but
the one with the actual binary content (1/1) got
filtered out at many places in the mesh. And in
your case it sounds like it took a bit more time to
propagate to where it appeared in your queue.
Eeyore
"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4893BC2B...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Laurence Payne wrote:
> >
> > > [Image]
> >
> > Came through here.
> >
> > Let me attach one.
>
> Interesting...
Did you see it ?
> I'm quite certain that I haven't seen binaries in this
> group except on the rarest of ocassions... and today, after all
> these NNTP changes by Veraisin (hot here today, too), suddenly
> I get two on the same day.
>
> Verizon is obviously up to something... It's a conspiracy..... ;-)
>
> However, when I responded to Lawrence's post, the binary was
> instantly dropped from the reply... while yours appears to have
> remained attached. I'd be doing everyone a favor if I deleted,
> but I'm curious to see if it's filtered going in the other direction.
> (I won't do this again).
You do know about the NYC AG 'ban' on binary and alt groups right that several ISPs have meekly gone along
with ?
Graham
0jun...@bellsouth.net
On 2008-08-02 fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm said:
>However, when I responded to Lawrence's post, the binary was
>instantly dropped from the reply... while yours appears to have
>remained attached. I'd be doing everyone a favor if I deleted,
>but I'm curious to see if it's filtered going in the other
>direction. (I won't do this again).
original, though as a separatte message, for reasons Graham
already stated.
Richard webb,
replace anything before at with elspider
Mickey
>> >> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
>> >> traffic?
>
> If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
> the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
Another kneejerk stab at the US, which is in so many ways the
nation in the world most committed to free speech.
--
Mickey
I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90%
how I react to it. And so it is for you... we are in charge
of our attitudes. -- Charles Swindoll
Don Pearce
> On 2008-08-01, David Morgan (MAMS) <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>>>>> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
>>>>> traffic?
>> If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
>> the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
>
> Another kneejerk stab at the US, which is in so many ways the
> nation in the world most committed to free speech.
>
I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
d
Eeyore
Mickey wrote:
> On 2008-08-01, David Morgan (MAMS) <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
> >> >> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
> >> >> traffic?
> >
> > If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
> > the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
>
> Another kneejerk stab at the US, which is in so many ways the
> nation in the world most committed to free speech.
Errrrr, so why are many major ISPs removing alt. and binaries groups ?
Graham
Eeyore
Don Pearce wrote:
They've finally totally and truly lost the plot Don.
And now they may confiscate your laptop (with no reason required) at
airports. You might wait months (if ever) for return.
So DO NOT take a laptop (or personal assistant) containing important
(non-backed-up) data EVER into the USA.
Better to buy a new one there and re-install the apps and reload the data
over the net.
Graham
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48945849...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote:
>
> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4893BC2B...@hotmail.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Laurence Payne wrote:
> > >
> > > > [Image]
> > >
> > > Came through here.
> > >
> > > Let me attach one.
> >
> > Interesting...
> Did you see it ?
> > I'm quite certain that I haven't seen binaries in this
> > group except on the rarest of ocassions... and today, after all
> > these NNTP changes by Veraisin (hot here today, too),
> > suddenly I get two on the same day.
> You do know about the NYC AG 'ban' on binary and alt groups
> right that several ISPs have meekly gone along with ?
I've been bitching about this for weeks. 90% of all political and religious
discussion has been terminated by Verizon with the loss of 10's of
thousands of "alt" newsgroups. Same with more of the major telephone
and ISP / NNTP providers around the US.
David Morgan (MAMS)
<0jun...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:2EZkk.2755$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> On 2008-08-02 fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm said:
> >However, when I responded to Lawrence's post, the binary was
> >instantly dropped from the reply... while yours appears to have
> >remained attached. I'd be doing everyone a favor if I deleted,
> >but I'm curious to see if it's filtered going in the other
> >direction. (I won't do this again).
> Didn't see it in your reply here. Did see Lawrence's
> original, though as a separatte message, for reasons Graham
> already stated.
Although it remained attached in my (text only) response, it was
filtered by Verizon on the way back. It did not show up a second
time in the group.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Mickey" <mic...@perusion.net> wrote in message news:slrng9916e...@bill.heins.net...
> On 2008-08-01, David Morgan (MAMS) <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
> >> >> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
> >> >> traffic?
> > If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
> > the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
> Another kneejerk stab at the US, which is in so many ways the
> nation in the world most committed to free speech.
This is no "kneejerk" stab.... this is obvious, fact-filled commentary
on a very striking and potentially devastating situation building in
the USA.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48948E9D...@hotmail.com...
The loss of Binaries is self explanatory... the loss of ALL of the "alt"
hierarchy is the trampling of free speech and the right to dissent.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
He who allows oppression, shares the crime.
-- Erasmus Darwin
Richard Crowley
> hierarchy is the trampling of free speech and the right to dissent.
The left-controlled US legislature in the next term will likely
make a strong attempt to effectively kill off talk radio in the US, .
THAT is a much more serious trampling of free speech and
the right to dissent. Any criticism of the left is labeled "hate-
speech". What exquisite hypocrites they are.
But I think the termination of alt and binaries by the ISPs
boils down to a corporate profit/loss/hassle decision.
Combined with profound ignorance of what Usenet even is.
Richard Crowley
> Mickey wrote:
>> David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
>> >> >> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
>> >> >> traffic?
>> >
>> > If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
>> > the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
>>
>> Another kneejerk stab at the US, which is in so many ways the
>> nation in the world most committed to free speech.
>
> Errrrr, so why are many major ISPs removing alt. and binaries groups ?
It is just the first step to dropping Usenet altogether.
Likely only a fraction of their customers even know
what Usenet is. It costs $$$ to operate, and users
can always go to Google Groups if they want to read
or post, so why bother with Usenet at all?
The question isn't why they are removing alt and binaries
groups, but why they didn't take the opportunity to dump
Usenet altogether. Its not a philosophical, moral, or even
legal decision. It is a business and profit decision. If you
used the word "Usenet" in the boardroom, likely none of
the members of the board would even know what it is.
Likewise with the politicians in NY.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> > The loss of Binaries is self explanatory... the loss of ALL of the "alt"
> > hierarchy is the trampling of free speech and the right to dissent.
> The left-controlled US legislature in the next term will likely
> make a strong attempt to effectively kill off talk radio in the US.
False. What they will do, is attempt to prevent the right-wing
propagandists for the neo-con gloabal takeover, from occupying
some 90% of the airwaves and denying license and access to
dissenting voices.
If you haven't seen the documentaries, "The Corporation" or
"Manufacturing Dissent"... please do.
> But I think the termination of alt and binaries by the ISPs
> boils down to a corporate profit/loss/hassle decision.
> Combined with profound ignorance of what Usenet even is.
That is a good point.... most children think you have to be on the
www before you can communicate at all.... they have no clue
about fido and early Compuserve - and the word "newsreader"
generally makes no sense at all. However, it's a LONG way from
from actually being completely true or a legitimate reason for this
action.
However, I think that even I have focused too much on the "binaries"
and "alt" sources to successfully make the point I am trying to get
across here, regarding what we are REALLY losing by this change.
The truth of the matter is that ALL but the USA's "big eight" NNTP
have been removed from public access. This includes a VAST
number foreign sources, educational sources, and untold amounts
of access to general discussion with points around the globe.
Some groups no longer provided will include foreign and US city and state
government listings (austin.xxx sunnyvale.xxx washington.xxx, boulder.xxx);
ALL nations and countries with access points on NNTP (china.xxx japan.xxx
fi.xxx australia.xxx de.xxx, es.xxx dk.xxx ca.xxx br.xxx israel.xxx, etc., etc.);
All colleges and universities that provided course references and open
discussion via NNTP (harvard.xxx princeton.xxx cornell.xxx mit.xxx
git.xxx ucsc.xxx utexas.xxx cu.xxx, etc., etc.). This alone represents
the loss of thousands of commercial, educational, and local & state
government information and discussion groups... say nothing of the
losses of access to foreign communications.
ALL FOREIGN NNTP is now missing in the USA, gone... zip, zilch, nada.
ALL of "bit" in all languages
ALL of "bionet"
ALL of "courts"
ALL of "corel"
I'll stop alphabetically with the "C's," but not fail to include...
ALL of "linux"
ALL of "microsoft"
ALL of fido.xxx and fido7.xxx in ALL languages
Etc., etc..
This is not funny. American NNTP users have just been CUT OFF
from their ability to communicate almost instantly with the vast majority
of the rest of the world and places of importance.... Political discussion
has been dramatically severed... religious discussion the same.... and
educational losses are unfathomable.
All this is no thanks to brainwashed, separatist, partisan political 'players'
who would rather insinuate that "leftists" and "liberals" and democrats are
somehow sub-human, rather than taking a real stand for the re-unification
of the American population which would allow us to take back our fragile
way of government from the Corporate Coup D'Etat of 2000. If the name-
callers would pull their heads out of their asses and look at more than just
the propaganda leaflets and neo-con web sites, there might be a chance
yet to educate the American population to get active before it's too late.
Together we stand or divided we will fall... and hurling insults across
party lines is the height of distraction from the real national and global
issues faced by a complacent and disinterested American populous.
Intimidation just isn't going to work any more, no matter what sort of
example dRugsh Limp-baugh cares to set at the behest of the party.
Corporate rule of the USA **must** come to an end... and this assault
on NNTP is just one more way of placing that goal a little further from
being reached.
"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
~ James Madison
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is
strong enough to take everything you have.
-- Thomas Jefferson
America is NOT at war…. the U.S. Military is at war. America is at the mall.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message...
> It costs $$$ to operate, and users
> can always go to Google Groups if they want to read
> or post, so why bother with Usenet at all?
Nice excuse.... very 'convenient' hogwash.
Google is an extremely limited web based mirror..... it is *not* NNTP.
Richard Crowley
> False. What they will do, is attempt to prevent the right-wing
> propagandists for the neo-con gloabal takeover, from occupying
> some 90% of the airwaves and denying license and access to
> dissenting voices.
I challenge you to show documentation of the claim that
"dissenting voices" are being denied licenses. Just because
Air America was a commercial flop and left-wing talk
radio is such a yawn with actual listeners doesn't mean that
they have any less access to the airwaves.
If they want to bring back the "fairness doctrine", will that
apply to all the news and entertainment content that are
blatantly left-leaning? No, I didn't think so. It only applies
to talk radio where thinking people actually interact with
each other.
> If you haven't seen the documentaries, "The Corporation" or
> "Manufacturing Dissent"... please do.
Given the people who produced them, I can likely create
an accurate outline of the content without even seeing them.
> The truth of the matter is that ALL but the USA's "big eight" NNTP
> have been removed from public access.
Baloney. They are still avilable on the actual NNTP providers.
Two examples just from my own NNTP services...
individual.net serves up >2000 *active* alt newsgroups. They have
never carried binaries as a matter of bandwidth. They are text-only.
Supernews shows 10s of thousands of alt groups. I gave up trying
to count after the first 10,000. They are also serving up >>20,000
binaries newsgroups. I would be surprised if the other big NNTP
services were doing anything different.
> Corporate rule of the USA **must** come to an end... and this assault
> on NNTP is just one more way of placing that goal a little further from
> being reached.
Somebody needs a nap.
Richard Crowley
>> It costs $$$ to operate, and users
>> can always go to Google Groups if they want to read
>> or post, so why bother with Usenet at all?
>
> Nice excuse.... very 'convenient' hogwash.
>
> Google is an extremely limited web based mirror..... it is *not* NNTP.
I was citing the likely "reasoning" of the management of
your ISP. If they don't make a profit, they will go out
of business, but a bunch of employees on welfare (for
you to support with your taxes) and you will have to find
a new ISP. That is how capitalism works, no matter how
distasteful that seems to be for you.
I would be very surprised if the NNTP operation of ANY
ISP is even paying its own way these days. How long do
you think anybody can operate at a loss? Even a non-
profit organization?
Mickey
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48948E9D...@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>> Mickey wrote:
>>
>> > On 2008-08-01, David Morgan (MAMS) <fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>> > >> >> Are you suggesting that there will be some worldwide ban on NTTP
>> > >> >> traffic?
>
>> > > If you don't think that it could eventually come to that, at least in
>> > > the USA, you aren't looking at things very carefully.
>
>> > Another kneejerk stab at the US, which is in so many ways the
>> > nation in the world most committed to free speech.
>
>> Errrrr, so why are many major ISPs removing alt. and binaries groups ?
>
> The loss of Binaries is self explanatory... the loss of ALL of the "alt"
> hierarchy is the trampling of free speech and the right to dissent.
>
What BS. Dropping of those groups is simply economic. A miniscule number
of people require maintaining NNTP feeds in thg multi-gig range. It is
almost no promotional advantage to say "clean and complete NNTP feed".
All cost, no revenue, no upside at all. What is amazing is how long
it has taken for this to happen.
If you want decent news feeds, go to Supernews, Giganews, or any of
several dozen others. You can get a great feed for $4.00 per month.
--
Mickey
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Mickey
>
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
>
>> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
>
>> > The loss of Binaries is self explanatory... the loss of ALL of the "alt"
>> > hierarchy is the trampling of free speech and the right to dissent.
>
>> The left-controlled US legislature in the next term will likely
>> make a strong attempt to effectively kill off talk radio in the US.
>
> False. What they will do, is attempt to prevent the right-wing
> propagandists for the neo-con gloabal takeover,
You are really certifiable. You have exactly zero evidence for this
ridiculous assertion.
> from occupying some 90% of the airwaves and denying license and access
> to dissenting voices.
If "dissenting voices" sold, they would be there. Air America and other
proves it doesn't sell. It was available, and failed to take the world
by storm.
--
Mickey
My wife is great. She doesn't care where I go, just as long as I don't
have any fun. -- Lee Trevino
Joe Kotroczo
<fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
(...)
> This is not funny. American NNTP users have just been CUT OFF
> from their ability to communicate almost instantly with the vast majority
> of the rest of the world and places of importance.... Political discussion
> has been dramatically severed... religious discussion the same.... and
> educational losses are unfathomable.
American users still have the ability to use non-american NNTP servers, do
they not?
Individual.net has been mentioned several times, they are actually the
University of Berlin in Germany...
--
Joe Kotroczo kotr...@mac.com
Mickey
"Fact-filled"? Is that like creampuffs with custard filling?
You presented no actual evidence at all. There is nothing in the
offing to remove alt or binaries. Several ISPs made a decision to drop
some news, and their subscribers failed to kick up a fuss and move
to other providers because of it.
Meanwhile, every alt group around is served up by Supernews and many
others for $4.00 per month, which isn't even costly enough for you
to claim that it is "keeping it from the masses".
Mickey
"Terminated". What a crock.
Nothing prevents you from ponying up $4.00 per month and getting it back.
Less than that if you buy by the year.
--
Mickey
I have a cop friend who thinks he ought be able to give a new ticket;
"too dumb for conditions".
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:T7-dnclYH5tVLgnV...@posted.pcez...
I see NNTP as a largely ignored, self sustaining entity which only
demands attention of personnel when "terms of service" issues
arise. Storage is a non-issue, with automated dated expiration.
Mickey
> On 2/08/08 20:46, in article TX1lk.87$7N1.54@trnddc06, "David Morgan (MAMS)"
><fin...@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote:
>
>
> (...)
>> This is not funny. American NNTP users have just been CUT OFF
>> from their ability to communicate almost instantly with the vast majority
>> of the rest of the world and places of importance.... Political discussion
>> has been dramatically severed... religious discussion the same.... and
>> educational losses are unfathomable.
>
> American users still have the ability to use non-american NNTP servers, do
> they not?
Not only that, but they can freely use the several outstanding low-cost
NNTP providers based in the US.
>
> Individual.net has been mentioned several times, they are actually the
> University of Berlin in Germany...
>
We are just witnessing the spouting of either a 1) lunatic or 2) troll.
I suggest we all go back to our regularly scheduled audio discussion.
(A sufficiently clever troll is indistinguishable from a lunatic, but
Occam's Razor would point toward the lunatic theory.)
--
Mickey
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> wrote in message...
> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote...
> > If you haven't seen the documentaries, "The Corporation" or
> > "Manufacturing Dissent"... please do.
> Given the people who produced them, I can likely create
> an accurate outline of the content without even seeing them.
IOW, you're a closed-minded, neo-conservative shill.
That'll be all for now...
;-)
Mickey
Spout your fact-free ad-hominem attack and run, aye. I
do wish you would make this permanent, but that would be a
bit much to hope for.
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Mickey" <mic...@perusion.net> wrote in message
> "Terminated". What a crock.
Please show me how Verizon is allowing continued access.
Mickey
>
You are tiresome.
Verizon dropped Usenet. They didn't "terminate discussion". It is
an economic decision, and you cannot show how it is not. You can
seemingly just make wild claims.
--
Mickey
Fast, reliable, cheap. Pick two and we'll talk. -- unknown
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Mickey" <mic...@perusion.net> wrote in message
> What BS. Dropping of those groups is simply economic.
Dropping of your ignorance is at least still a preferred option. I won't
even wait for you to show me the balance sheet for Verizon detailing
the vast expense of opening a portal for NNTP.
<plonkola>