56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned, disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history, blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for >another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have, >possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against >providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for >another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate
only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible
for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have, >possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against >providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 23:36:37 -0300, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for >>another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate >>only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they >>were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible >>for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >>company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >>them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have, >>possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against >>providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
seems likely that ~55 days from now, googlegroups will sever its ties
to usenet servers, and if that happens might other non-google servers
pick up the slack to help fill the predictable spam void in gg's wake?
but as for the immense gg archive, there are probably other resources >available to essentially rebuild it from scratch, thus letting google
off the hook: is a comprehensive usenet archive really that important?
as many have pointed out, news articles have always been ephemeral by
nature, not really intended for permanent reference beyond those that
saved them; in a perfect usenet world, there would be no crossposting
and no commercial advertising, so people can continue being imperfect; >newton, optics, photons, magnets, cubits, senet, etc., that's fun too
In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned,
disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off,
put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed,
taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history,
blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon?
You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for >>another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate >>only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they >>were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible >>for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >>company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >>them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We still should!!
In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned, >>>> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off, >>>> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed, >>>> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history, >>>> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon? >>>You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for >>>another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate >>>only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they >>>were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible >>>for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >>>company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help >>>them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >>>them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >>>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We still should!!
Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
rendering moot the litigation.
We should also formally ask them for a copy of the archive they have, >>possibly suing them if they deny. I think the people likely have /a/
right in having a copy of that. They might not have anything against >>providing the world with a copy of the data, but they're likely
Newtonian: will not move unless an external force is applied.
seems likely that ~55 days from now, googlegroups will sever its ties
to usenet servers, and if that happens might other non-google servers
pick up the slack to help fill the predictable spam void in gg's wake?
but as for the immense gg archive, there are probably other resources available to essentially rebuild it from scratch, thus letting google
off the hook: is a comprehensive usenet archive really that important?
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >>>>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug >>>>them and nothing else.
We still should!!
Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time, >>rendering moot the litigation.
But the damage is trackable.
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned, >>>> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off, >>>> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed, >>>> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history, >>>> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon? >>>You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for
another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate >>> only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they
were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible >>> for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >>> company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >>> them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but
we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We still should!!
Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
rendering moot the litigation.
In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the
USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We still should!!
Should we archive everything?
[...]
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >>>>>USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug >>>>>them and nothing else.
We still should!!
Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time, >>>rendering moot the litigation.
But the damage is trackable.
As long as a court receives your petition, you can litigate. You'll
need to show you legally represent ``/the/ USENET''. (Or what are the >parties in the litigation?)
On 12/28/23 09:33, Julieta Shem wrote:
Should we archive everything?
That's up to each individual archivist.
They should properly clarify what they do and do not archive.
Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
What would be your clarification? :-)
That's up to each individual archivist.
On 12/28/23 21:24, Julieta Shem wrote:
Suppose you are an invididual archivist. Should you archive everything?
What would be your clarification? :-)
As I said before ...
On 12/28/23 13:57, Grant Taylor wrote:
That's up to each individual archivist.
these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
Julieta Shem wrote:
doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) writes:
In article <87edf7aw96.fsf_-_@yaxenu.org>,
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
D <J@M> writes:
[...]
56 days until google cuts the cho... err..cord, will be decommissioned, >>>>> disabled, disconnected, deactivated, dismantled, shut down, turned off, >>>>> put aside, unplugged, inoperative, unavailable, mothballed, disallowed, >>>>> taken down, phased out, gone kaput, consigned to the annals of history, >>>>> blocked, nixed, ixnayed, etcetera . . . countdown to usenet armageddon? >>>>You know what would be funny? If GG doesn't unplug and goes quiet for >>>> another few years and everything remains as it is. We need to celebrate >>>> only after they part. Yes, I'm surely hoping they go.
When they joined, bought DejaNews and everything, I was happy that they >>>> were doing a good job. I was too young then, though. I didn't know
that years go by and companies go rotten. Had the employees responsible >>>> for them joining had any wisdom, they wouldn't have done the work. If a >>>> company asks for my help to join the USENET today, I should only help
them if I also have the power to unplug them if I ever untie myself from >>>> them. We let people destroy their lives because it's their lives, but >>>> we cannot let them destroy the commune.
We should have sued Google Inc. over the destruction they caused on the >>>> USENET for all these years. We should ask the courts to just unplug
them and nothing else.
We still should!!
Not any longer --- they promised to disappear in a reasonable time,
rendering moot the litigation.
They have bigger lawyers.
On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
No they are not.
They have bigger lawyers.
In article <87mstswhkj.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already. >>>No they are not.
Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
I think the argument that is being made is that if you don't store something, >it will be lost, and that once it is lost it stays that way. So you need to >make the decision about what to archive before that happens.
If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is >so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very >interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those >archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already.
No they are not.
Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
In article <umpa8q$cpn$1@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
In article <87mstswhkj.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already. >>>>No they are not.
Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either >>>way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
I think the argument that is being made is that if you don't store something, >>it will be lost, and that once it is lost it stays that way. So you need to >>make the decision about what to archive before that happens.
If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is >>so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those >>archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
I wonder continue to archive US"Enetto the last post.
In article <87mstswhkj.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
On 12/29/23 11:06, Julieta Shem wrote:
these are fixed decisions because they all belong to your past already. >>>No they are not.
Lol. You don't seem to know how to suppose or refuse to do so. Either
way is quite alright with me. No hard feelings.
I think the argument that is being made is that if you don't store something, it will be lost, and that once it is lost it stays that way. So you need to make the decision about what to archive before that happens.
If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
--scott
In article <87mstswhkj.fsf@yaxenu.org>, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days. But I would be very
interested in maintaining archives from the past. But, I didn't keep those archives from the past, so they are now lost to me.
If it were me, I would not actually bother to archive Usenet because there is so little actual worthwhile traffic on Usenet these days.
That sentence no verb.
--scott
On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>
That sentence no verb.
--scott
That grammar bad.
That syntax no sense.
Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug> writes:
On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>
That sentence no verb.
--scott
That grammar bad.
That syntax no sense.
Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
Lol!
Tell him as well that his signature violates section 4.3 of RFC 3676.
SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug> writes:
On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>
That sentence no verb.
--scott
That grammar bad.
That syntax no sense.
Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
Lol!
Tell him as well that his signature violates section 4.3 of RFC 3676.
On Sun, 31 Dec 2023 00:42:08 -0300
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
SugarBug <3883@sugar.bug> writes:
On 30 Dec 2023 15:23:31 -0000
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
<snip>
That sentence no verb.
--scott
That grammar bad.
That syntax no sense.
Grammar Nazi, meet Syntax Soviet.
Lol!
Tell him as well that his signature violates section 4.3 of RFC 3676.
It's a deadly trio. Signzatsgruppen Sigzstaffel has entered the chat.
I wonder continue to archive US"Enetto the last post.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:41:01 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,878 |
| Posted today: | 1 |