Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Internet Archive Has Saved Over 10,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes of the Web

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the or-one-kilo-library-of-congress dept.

The Internet 135

An anonymous reader writes "Last night, the Internet Archive threw a party; hundreds of Internet Archive supporters, volunteers, and staff celebrated that the site had passed the 10,000,000,000,000,000 byte mark for archiving the Internet. As the non-profit digital library, known for its Wayback Machine service, points out, the organization has thus now saved 10 petabytes of cultural material." The announcement coincided with the release of an 80-terabyte dataset for researchers and, for the first time, the complete literature of a people: the Balinese.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

f1rst (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794093)

le first XD

Re:f1rst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795401)

They should have written it in bits: 80,000,000,000,000,000 !!

Re:f1rst (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795935)

What's a Wetback Machine?

Relevance of byte count (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794099)

How much of that is porn, I wonder.

Re:Relevance of byte count (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | about 2 years ago | (#41794109)

If only one of those files is a MP3, the RIAA is going to have an orgasm.

Re:Relevance of byte count (4, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41794203)

They have over 1.5 million unique audio files in the Live Music Archive alone. I know because I helped them count. (That's unique files, not counting the duplicates in different formats.) If the RIAA has anything to say about it, they're serious slacking.

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794311)

Sweet! Did you guys save my Geocities page too?

Re:Relevance of byte count (5, Funny)

GofG (1288820) | about 2 years ago | (#41794787)

There is a torrent on thepiratebay of every single geocities site. It's an archive, but i've downloaded it. What was your site? I'll rar it up for you.

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794853)

Sorry my finger slipped when I went to mod this up. Can I undo!

Re:Relevance of byte count (5, Interesting)

GofG (1288820) | about 2 years ago | (#41795083)

No, go ahead and mod me down. Every time i post, I look at my user ID and think "GOD FUCKING DAMNIT IF I HAD WAITED LIKE TEN MINUTES I WOULD HAVE HAD A PALINDROME AUAUUUUUUGGGHHH"

i deserve all the downmods i get, accidental or otherwise.

Re:Relevance of byte count (2)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41795005)

Probably. I found a copy of my first-ever homepage, which actually predated Geocities, and was probably even more useless than your average Geocities page. :)

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

pongo000 (97357) | about 2 years ago | (#41794339)

They have over 1.5 million unique audio files in the Live Music Archive alone.

Since they can't be copied per the terms of the TOS, what good do they serve? Why bother counting something you technically can't access?

Re:Relevance of byte count (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794723)

Because eventually they WILL be accessable when copyright runs out. But if nobody other than the 'rightsholders' have copies, that wouldn't matter, they could trivially remaster them, then have copyright over the remasters for another century after destroying the originals so they could never get out.

Re:Relevance of byte count (5, Funny)

Raenex (947668) | about 2 years ago | (#41795205)

when copyright runs out

Thanks for the laugh.

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41794991)

I think you must be looking at the wrong part of the Archive. Everything in the Live Music section and the Netlabels section is public domain or licensed under a CC license or equivalent. The media collections are separate from the Wayback Machine.

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41794223)

If only one of those files is a MP3, the RIAA is going to have an orgasm.

Correction: Evilgasm.

Re:Relevance of byte count (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794411)

Exclusive-Or-gasm. FTFY.

Re:Relevance of byte count (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795967)

Maybe not the RIAA...but there's also the "shareware CD collection" section which contains russian software piracy compilation CDs, over 50gb worth of 94-99 ripped commercial games.

I don't know who's perverting the archive with illicit material but it's there, and sure is tainting the place.

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

dohzer (867770) | about 2 years ago | (#41794505)

4kB should be enough for anyone.

Re:Relevance of byte count (2)

Mikkeles (698461) | about 2 years ago | (#41795789)

They're exaggerating; I know there are only 256 bytes, so I think they're counting duplicates!

Re:Relevance of byte count (1)

amanaplanacanalpanam (685672) | about 2 years ago | (#41795863)

At least a couple pedobytes.

Balinese, huh? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794129)

Well, I guess they didn't have time to write much, being busy dealing with Orcs and Balrogs.

What about the Thorinim?

Re:Balinese, huh? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41796429)

Hey, be glad it's not written in Palinese. Now *that* would have been nasty.

Indeed! (3, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41794139)

And nothing of value was saved...

Re:Indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794187)

How many users are not aware they are not being paid by the Alexa Internet Archive?

Re:Indeed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796375)

Come on, you stupid asshats, it's a joke based on the "and nothing of value was lost..."

What a bunch of overly sensitive juveniles.

Use prefixes. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794145)

That's what they're for.
Counting zeroes is a chore.

Re:Use prefixes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794331)

Dammit, where's my prefix flamewar! This is slashdot, how am I supposed to root for the anti-"mebi" crowd when both sides are a no-show? I mean, look at this story! It's an obvious cue for that old chestnut to be brought out and fought over.

  Maybe the pro-SI guys just can't bring themselves to defend "pebibytes?"

  Hey, that would mean we win by default! Alright! 1024! 1024! 1024! Whoooo!

Yes, but... (4, Funny)

Lordfly (590616) | about 2 years ago | (#41794181)

I need a car analogy about the Library of Congress before i can understand that number.

Re:Yes, but... (2)

MangoCats (2757129) | about 2 years ago | (#41794303)

It's like the Library of Congress stuffed floor to ceiling with Service Manuals?

Re:Yes, but... (4, Interesting)

Squeeself (729802) | about 2 years ago | (#41794317)

I know this was in jest, but in this case, unlike so many other times this joke is made, it's slightly relevant. A quick Google turned up the following incomplete info http://www.quora.com/Library-of-Congress/How-much-data-does-the-library-of-congress-actually-represent [quora.com] which states tape storage capacity of the Library of Congress circa 2011 at 4.5 petabytes. The answer, then, is the this is approximately ~2 Library of Congresses of data, which is just a tad bit much to fit in the trunk of your car. It's going to take a few trips to the Library and back to move that data around.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

thygate (1590197) | about 2 years ago | (#41794327)

Well it's about 30 libraries of congress and 3 SUV's, plus or minus a minivan.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 2 years ago | (#41794735)

At what tape density?

Re:Yes, but... (2)

deblau (68023) | about 2 years ago | (#41794517)

If you live in Vancouver, it's roughly the number of nanometers you would cover on a round trip drive to the Library of Congress.

Re:Yes, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795033)

I need a car analogy about the Library of Congress before i can understand that number.

Most of it is a bunch of lubricated tubes, usually sets of two.

Re:Yes, but... (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#41796065)

It's roughly 13,000 VW Beetles filled with telephone books.

Future Generations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794195)

Should there be a gigantic catastrophe, none of this will be useful to the survivors. Chiseled on stone is the only way.

Re:Future Generations (0)

metalmaster (1005171) | about 2 years ago | (#41794239)

You mean like hurricane sandy?

Re:Future Generations (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794355)

Hey smilin' strange...

You're lookin happily deranged.

Re:Future Generations (1)

ixnaay (662250) | about 2 years ago | (#41795739)

The First Council of the Druids will find a way to recover the data.

Indispensable reference for slashdotters (5, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41794255)

For instance, note the archived film [archive.org] "Dating: Do's and Don'ts" (1949) It begins thus:

How do you choose a date? Whose company would you enjoy?

Well, one thing you can consider is looks. Woody thought of Janice and how good looking she was. He'd really have to rate to date her. Yes, he'd enjoy that, except... Well, it's too bad Janice always acts so superior. She'd make a fellow feel awkward and bored.

Well, perhaps someone who doesn't feel so superior. There's Betty. And yet, it just doesn't seem as if she'd be much fun.

What about Anne? She knows how to have a good time, and how to make the fellow with her relax, too. Yes, that's what a boy likes.

Yes, the Internet now provides everything you ever needed to know but were afraid to ask.

Re:Indispensable reference for slashdotters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794353)

How do you choose a date? Whose company would you enjoy? ... Well, it's too bad Janice always acts so superior. She'd make a fellow feel awkward and bored. ... What about Anne? She knows how to have a good time, and how to make the fellow with her relax, too. Yes, that's what a boy likes.

Yes Janice, get your head out of your ass. You could take a few tips from Anne -- she's a pro."

The more you know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794301)

10,000,000,000,000,000 is 8.88178 Petabytes. Remember a kilobyte is 1024 bytes not 1000 bytes.

Re:The more you know. (1, Informative)

Aldanga (1757414) | about 2 years ago | (#41794325)

Incorrect. A kibibyte is 1024 bytes, while a kilobyte is 1000 bytes. [wikipedia.org]

I don't usually care enough to point out the distinction, but since you did, I figured a correction was appropriate.

Re:The more you know. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794381)

Your response is only correct if you are in marketing.

If you are referring to storage sizes in relation to computers, be it RAM, disk sizes, etc., it is correct to express them in powers of 2.
A kilobyte is 2 to the 10th power. A megabyte is 2 raised tot he 20 the power.

Marketing people for disk drives started redefining the "size" terms because it made their products seem bigger.
And yes, I know this first hand because I was in some of the meetings when it was discussed way back when.

Re:The more you know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794525)

You were around in the 50s and 60s for marketing meetings for delay line memory when some of them decided to use powers of tens as they were not constructed from a power of 2 number of discrete elements and instead based more on communication conventions which also tended to powers of ten bits at the time?

Re:The more you know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794665)

Bob, is that you?

Re:The more you know. (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41794833)

If you are referring to storage sizes in relation to computers, be it RAM, disk sizes, etc., it is correct to express them in powers of 2.

No it's not. It's sometimes convenient to do so, especially for RAM, but the prefixes used are defined by the SI and recognised by a large number of international organisations including the IEEE.

Yes, marketing people find this useful. But it's also recognised as correct by many engineers. It's actually quite useful. Using a certain type of modulation, a 1KHz signal can transfer 1 kilobit in 1 second, and this will take 8 second to transfer 1 kilobyte of data. Why does it make any sense to worry about binary addressing here?

Re:The more you know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795995)

prefixes used are defined by the SI

For storage sizes they're defined based on powers of two, which overrides the SI definition because more specific rules always override more general ones.

Re:The more you know. (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41796575)

For storage sizes they're defined based on powers of two, which overrides the SI definition because more specific rules always override more general ones.

Which rules? Where is a kilobyte defined as 1024 bytes by any organisation with any influence?

And why base it on powers of two? It's illogical. The only time you're forced into a power of two is in the address space available to a CPU.

Re:The more you know. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795311)

SI prefixes are standardized for a reason.

All of which is rather useless... (4, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | about 2 years ago | (#41794335)

...since the TOS specifically prohibits copying data from the site:

"Our terms of use specify that users of the Wayback Machine are not to copy data from the collection. If there are special circumstances that you think the Archive should consider, please contact info at archive dot org. "

Warrick hasn't been taking new requests for months (and I'm sure it's more of a research tool than an actual service for the public), and the site effectively blocks attempts to backup data using wget. It makes me wonder who (or what) this archive really serves, because it's most certainly not the general public.

Re:All of which is rather useless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794549)

It serves Alexa, part of Amazon. Anyone who wants content excluded from the archive should notify them.

Re:All of which is rather useless... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794617)

Archive.org also seems to be more than willing to comply with foreign requests to delete website content they have archived. ex:
http://nspcanada.nfshost.com/ is another website that Archive.org will most likely remove when requested to do so by the Canadian court.
ref: http://www.whitenewsnow.com/paul-fromms-cafe/34485-judge-ponders-sending-dissident-prison-not-shutting-down-his-website.html

Re:All of which is rather useless... (1)

happyscientist (2508556) | about 2 years ago | (#41794625)

Besides the fact that it is not open, how are you supposed to compute against it? Download the 80TB and run it on your private data center? It should be fully open and available on a platform like AWS so people can actually use it.

Re:All of which is rather useless... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794899)

Indeed. Considering that they integrally copy and republish entire websites without even asking for permission, that is pretty damn hypocritical of them.

(Yeah, yeah, I can block it. Doesn't matter. An opt-out approach to mass copyright infringement is fundamentally wrong.)

Re:All of which is rather useless... (2)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41795037)

A) You can read it just like you can read normal webpages on the main web, most of which also don't allow you to copy them.
B) The Archive is more than just the Wayback machine. They also have what is almost certainly the worlds largest digital collection of public domain and CC-licensed media files in their media collections.

Re:All of which is rather useless... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795053)

On A: reading webpages IS copying them. Any attempt at distinction, given the technical details, is INSANE.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794351)

99% of this is probably porn.

-h (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794439)

>ls
The Internet Archive Has Saved Over 10,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes of the Web
>ls -h
The Internet Archive Has Saved Over 9095 Terabytes of the Web

They Should Copy All Of The Web Site (2)

eugene ts wong (231154) | about 2 years ago | (#41794447)

I have never understood why the few archive sites, that I have been to, never back up the entire web site, instead of just a few important pages and images. I can understand not accessing pages that are supposed to be secure, but all other pages should be fair game. This is most important for product knowledge. Some times a company takes down its site and images. It would be nice to have an archive to go to.

Re:They Should Copy All Of The Web Site (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794743)

As someone who has been looking for a variety of old pages linked to off websites. I have to agree.

I've gotten linked to archive.org looking for both SUN technical PDFs, which were totally eliminated after the oracle purchase, as well as various old dos era apps linked to off old geocities websites and such. The files in question have basically fallen off the face of the internet, but the pages linking to them haven't.

The utility of the latter is being severely inhibited by the lack of archiving of the former.

They had to count them all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794455)

There is a Beatles reference here somewhere.

Re:They had to count them all. (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41795951)

Very confusing [illinois.edu]

looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794471)

10,000,000,000,000,000 Bytes = 8.88 Petabytes

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794565)

looks like you forgot to spell pebibytes correctly

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795051)

Pedobytes.

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (0)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41795065)

They should have made a pebibyte 1,000,000,000,000,000. Trying to redefine petabyte was stupid.

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795199)

You have that backwards, kilo, mega, giga, tera and so forth are base ten prefixes and have been for quite a bit longer than people have been misusing them to refer to base 2 numbers. As such it made more sense to leave it consistent with everything else and make a new prefix for the binary numbers.

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796015)

As such it made more sense to leave it consistent with everything else and make a new prefix for the binary numbers.

In the context of storage sizes they were well-established with the binary-based definitions, so changing them to be decimal-based isn't "leaving" anything.

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796861)

Why would you want to use binary-based definitions for storage anyway? 1024 bytes in a KB, 5280 feet in a mile -- both are archaic. You shouldn't have to use a calculator to convert 1,000,000,000,000,000 into petabytes. Use metric! Your life will be easier.

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (2)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#41797053)

As such it made more sense to leave it consistent with everything else and make a new prefix for the binary numbers.

In the context of storage sizes they were well-established with the binary-based definitions, so changing them to be decimal-based isn't "leaving" anything.

Not true. In the context of storage sizes they were well-established to be base-10 definitions from the dawn of the computer age up until the 1980s or so. Only in the last 30 years or so have we started using powers of two units, and then only for RAM. Up until then, RAM was measured in powers-of-10 words, and in disk-based storage base 10 was and still is the norm. Network data rates likewise are and always have been in powers-of-10 units.

This is why it's useful to be careful to use the proper prefix. 10 petabytes is approximately 8.8 pebibytes. See? No confusion.

Re:looks like you forgot to add '-h' switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796317)

No. If they were to rename the decimal prefixes they would have to call it peDEbyte. Bi stands for binary after all. Incidently, pede is French for "gay" in the sense of homosexual.

Domain parkers deleting archives (5, Informative)

linebackn (131821) | about 2 years ago | (#41794515)

I don't know if they have done anything about this recently, but there was a problem with domain parking sites putting up a robots.txt that instructs Archive.org to delete or suppress any archives of the site that was there previously. Have run in to a few sites like that. If someone dies and their site goes with them, it isn't right for some squatter to remove their work from history.

And I wish I could pull up historic copies of the original altavista.digital.com.

Re:Domain parkers deleting archives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795437)

That is so retarded, such a thing shouldn't be possible.
Robots.txt shouldn't ever be retroactive without direct request from the owner. (with proof and all)

Re:Domain parkers deleting archives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796649)

Yeah, a startup I used to work for had some actual useful stuff in the Wayback Machine, but a squatter took over the domain name and all the archived material went away. It seems like vandalism to me, but I can't imagine what could be done about it.

Download Link? (4, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about 2 years ago | (#41794521)

How nice of them to do the archiving and release such a large dataset.

Where can I download the file?

My Poor Infringed Copyright!! (4, Funny)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 2 years ago | (#41794541)

It looks like they've copied my website and are therefore infringing my copyright.

But I won't be suing them because I don't mind, because I'm not Apple.

Re:My Poor Infringed Copyright!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796083)

It looks like they've copied my website and are therefore infringing my copyright.

But I won't be suing them because I don't mind, because I'm not Apple.

Good thing you don't mind, they are starting to look at "siteless websites" http://blog.archive.org/2012/10/22/siteless-website-possible-if-bittorrent-is-a-fileserver-without-a-server-what-about-a-website-without-a-site/ [archive.org] which would be even harder to complain about:
 

Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794613)

Is that 10,000,000,000,000,000 bytes created or saved?

So split about what to feel about Archive.org... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794687)

On one hand, it's a HORRIBLE violation of everyone's privacy. The more you know about how things work, the worse it gets. It's way worse than you think at first.

On the other hand, it's amazingly nice to be able to look at some old site that you thought was forever forgotten. But they may have no idea it's still there and want it gone, etc.

Re:So split about what to feel about Archive.org.. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41794939)

If you want to keep something private, maybe you shouldn't make it available to everyone on the Web?

Re:So split about what to feel about Archive.org.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794973)

Maybe you fail to grasp basic psychology?

What the hell (5, Interesting)

nuckfuts (690967) | about 2 years ago | (#41794907)

are they using for backups?

Re:What the hell (2)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41796407)

more disks, and they send a copy to euroarchive and the Library of Alexandria. in 2006, that copy & verify process to remote site took two weeks.

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/technology/features/article.php/3633256/The-Wayback-Machine-From-Petabytes-to-PetaBoxes.htm [enterprise...eforum.com]

Re:What the hell (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41796503)

A very large cluster of 1,44 floppy drives. And 20,000 interns swapping them them out every 10 seconds.

Just fucking say Petabytes. (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41794987)

I know the prefix invokes unpleasant connotations, but it also means 10^15.

Re:Just fucking say Petabytes. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 2 years ago | (#41794993)

(This is in reference to the headline.)

ZeroZeroZeroZeroZero... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41794995)

If this was "News for Nerds" the title would read:

The Internet Archive Has Saved Over 10^16 Bytes of the Web!

Do you want to impress us on how looong your zeros* are?

* Hint: I'm talking about your penis.

Big Numbers hurt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795263)

Sorry, I can't comprehend that number, could some young newspaper hack put it in terms of olympic sized swimming pools and/or UK double decker buses for me please...

Hardcopy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795333)

They should print it all off, for safekeeping.

"the complete literature of a people: the Balinese (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795385)

LOL!
What about "the complete literature of a people: the AFRICANS"...

That wouldn't take much space, would it, seeing as only AFRICANS were incapable of inventing WRITING. So they have no history, apart from what 'evil' whitey has recorded about them and their savagery. What a joke.

But remember: "we're all the same", the Jew says so...

www.tomato-bubble.com

Were's my page then? (3, Informative)

AndyKron (937105) | about 2 years ago | (#41795395)

With all those pages stored why does it always tell me that page can't be found?

Moar Pics! (1)

CodeheadUK (2717911) | about 2 years ago | (#41795507)

Shame about the lack of images*, archive.org is the only remaining evidence of Cliff Bleszinski's Cat-Scan.com [archive.org] . The site doesn't have the same comedy value without all the scans of squished cats.

*Yes, yes, I know that archiving images would require many extra fucktons of storage, but it would be worth it in some cases.

1st speedup & security guide for Windows (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795599)

Archived in its original form since 1996-1997 from NTCompatible.com (by "yours truly") -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml

Since then I've just updated it for more modern versions of Windows, with the most viewed, highly rated guide online for Windows security there really is which came from the fact I also created the 1st guide for securing Windows, highly rated @ NEOWIN (as far back as 1998-2001) here:

http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text

& from as far back as 1997 -> http://web.archive.org/web/20020205091023/www.ntcompatible.com/article1.shtml which Neowin above picked up on & rated very highly.

That has evolved more currently, into the MOST viewed & highly rated one there is for years now since 2008 online in the 1st URL link above...

Which has well over 500,000++ views online (actually MORE, but 1 site with 75,000 views of it went offline/out-of-business) & it's been made either:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) 5-5 star rated
3.) A "sticky-pinned" thread
4.) Most viewed in the category it's in (usually security)
5.) Got me PAID by winning a contest @ PCPitStop (quite unexpectedly - I was only posting it for the good of all, & yes, "the Lord works in mysterious ways", it even got me PAID -> http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2007/09/04/pc-pitstop-winners/ (see January 2008))

---

Across 15-20 or so sites I posted it on back in 2008... & here is the IMPORTANT part, in some sample testimonials to the "layered security" methodology efficacy:

---

SOME QUOTED TESTIMONIALS TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SAID LAYERED SECURITY GUIDE I AUTHORED:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=2

"I recently, months ago when you finally got this guide done, had authorization to try this on simple work station for kids. My client, who paid me an ungodly amount of money to do this, has been PROBLEM FREE FOR MONTHS! I haven't even had a follow up call which is unusual." - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

"APK, thanks for such a great guide. This would, and should, be an inspiration to such security measures. Also, the pc that has "tweaks": IS STILL GOING! NO PROBLEMS!" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

AND

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=672ebdf47af75a0c5b0d9e7278be305f&t=28430&page=3

"Its 2009 - still trouble free! I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point. So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008. Great stuff! My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now that it works. Speaking of which, I need to call her to see if I can get some leads. APK - I will say it again, the guide is FANTASTIC! Its made my PC experience much easier. Sandboxing was great. Getting my host file updated, setting services to system service, rather than system local. (except AVG updater, needed system local)" - THRONKA, user of my guide @ XTremePcCentral

---

* Nicest part of all is that it STILL works on modern Windows NT-based OS...

APK

P.S.=> It's done PRETTY WELL here on /. over time also:

---

* THE APK SECURITY GUIDE GROUP 18++ THUSFAR (from +5 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

APK SECURITY GUIDE:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1361585&cid=29360367
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2009 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1218837&cid=27787281
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&cid=25093275
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2010 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1885890&cid=34358316
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=154868&cid=12988150
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&no_d2=1&cid=25092677
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1027095&cid=25747655
APK SECURITY TEST CHALLENGE LINUX vs. WINDOWS:2007 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=267599&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20203061
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1638428&cid=32070500
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=168931&cid=14083927
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2009 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1135717&cid=26941781
APK SECURITY GUIDE:2008 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=416702&cid=22026982
APK SYSTEM TUNING:2010 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497268&cid=30649722
APK SECURITY GUIDE: 2008 -> http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=970939&no_d2=1&cid=25092677
APK SYSTEM TUNING:2010 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1497268&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30649722
APK SECURE SETUP FOR IP STACK:2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14211084
APK SECURITY GUIDE (old one):2005 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170545&cid=14210206
MICROSOFT SECURITY:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1546446&cid=31106612

---

... apk

LMAO @ trolls & their "effete" moddowns... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795713)

Is THAT "the best you've got", trolls, vs. the facts I posted here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3213635&cid=41795599

"?"

* Apparently so... you FAIL vs. fact, troll!

APK

P.S.=> Bottom-Line, to the puny troll that downmodded my post:

Hey - Is it MY fault you're nothing but a "ne'er-do-well" who hasn't done the same as I have? No! After all - all the unjustified moddowns in the world can't change that fact, about you...

... apk

You're Welcome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41795729)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040202004210/http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/links.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20040206214035/http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/links/archives.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060831063210/http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/reform.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060831063224/http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/data.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060831081811/http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/thnktank.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20070207050215/http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/sources.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20070217052232/http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/427/427links.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20100528020113/http://milw0rm.com/ [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215020827/http://www.linux-mag.com/2003-09/acls_01.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20041031074320/http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/secgloss.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20041125131921/http://tips.linux.com/tips/04/11/23/2022252.shtml?tid=100&tid=47&tid=35 [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20041231085409/http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/links.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306035558/http://www.spitzner.net/linux.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060712182215/http://linuxgazette.net/128/saha.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20090109020415/http://www.securityfocus.com/print/infocus/1414 [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20100529035423/http://www.cert.org/current/services_ports.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20070717124745/http://www.tldp.org/linuxfocus/English/Archives/lf-2003_01-0278.pdf [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060712151452/http://jbd.zayda.net/enscribe/ [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20040608141549/http://all.net/journal/netsec/1997-12.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20060220113124/http://www.dss.mil/training/salinks.htm [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20080222191230/http://the.jhu.edu/upe/2004/03/23/about-van-eck-phreaking/ [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20080820112134/http://www.crash-override.net/bogusdns.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20090210035245/http://danieldegraaf.afraid.org/info/ipv6 [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20100916111512/http://www.ibiblio.org/security/articles/ports.html [archive.org]
http://web.archive.org/web/20071228064639/http://www.computer.org/portal/site/csdl/index.jsp [archive.org]
http://archive.org/details/RECON2008 [archive.org]
http://archive.org/search.php?query=%22recon%202011%22 [archive.org]
http://archive.org/search.php?query=recon%202005%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies [archive.org]
http://archive.org/search.php?query=recon%202006%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies [archive.org]
http://archive.org/search.php?query=recon%202006%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies [archive.org]
http://archive.org/create/ [archive.org]
http://archive.org/details/bittorrent [archive.org]

Private archive (3, Interesting)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41796467)

It's great that archive.org is doing this, but it's such an important part of history so I thought I would do a mini-version for the pages I visit, just to be able to refer back to stuff. I've been using the Firefox addon called Shelve to save all pages I visit on my home computer for about 2 months now (at most one version for each day). It's a total of 5.8 GB. It's not useful for browsing though, I'd love it if it was better integrated with Firefox such that I could choose among all versions of each page. There's sometimes some excellent information on university pages or cheap hosting, that could be 10 years old, and you never really know how long it's going to stay up..

Anyway, this may give some perspective too; 2 months of daily snapshots of slashdot, other news, some tech stuff and a little Facebook takes just 5.8 GB.

Re:Private archive (1)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#41796769)

It's a total of 5.8 GB.

Seems I forgot the most important part: It's a total of over 6,000,000,000 bytes!!1

What file system are they using (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 years ago | (#41797029)

What OS and file system are they using to store all that data?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?