×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Newzbin2 Closes For Good

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the So-long-farewell-auf-weidersehen-goodbye dept.

Piracy 204

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

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

Kthxbai (5, Funny)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | about 2 years ago | (#42138933)

Apt.

Re:Kthxbai (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139281)

Apt.

How?

Re:Kthxbai (2, Funny)

dwywit (1109409) | about 2 years ago | (#42139349)

Get it? apt-get, gettit?

Re:Kthxbai (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139747)

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

Re:Kthxbai (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139981)

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

sudo - so you do (agree)

Is that a safe word for BDSM or in the event of an emergency?

OH NOES!!!! (1)

DiamondGeezer (872237) | about 2 years ago | (#42140039)

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

Censorship (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42138941)

Corporations do it better than governments ever could.

Re:Censorship (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42138989)

Really? Lot of corporations putting whole villages into mass graves nowadays? Is your sample size of governments only those that don't exist?

Re:Censorship (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139019)

Censorship. He didn't say mass murder.

Re:Censorship (0, Flamebait)

lucm (889690) | about 2 years ago | (#42139251)

Reminds me of a tech certification exam, where sometimes the right answer is the overkill one.

1. Which of the following is a form of censorship*:
A) Noam Chomsky complaining to Larry King during his primetime show that a conservative conspiracy prevents him from having access to mainstream medias.
B) The Muslims of the Handschar units using mass murder as a way to eradicate the communist resistance against nazis in former Yugoslavia in the 40s.
C) Spencer Tracy winning an Oscar for his role in Inherit the Wind, a movie that makes fun of 44% of the American population (those who totally reject the Theory of Evolution, as opposed to the 39% accepting the Theory as long as it includes a mention of God being somehow involved and the 10% rejecting God's role altogether).
D) The Hamas launching 2,256 rockets at Israel in 2012, to an average cost of $800 per rocket, while complaining in complacent liberal medias that the Palestinian people is starving.

*While each and every one of these situations is biased towards a specific position, only one qualifies as censorship.

Re:Censorship (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#42139789)

Umm...

Please excuse this dense-head ...

What's the right answer??

Re:Censorship (1)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42139879)

What is "B"?

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139037)

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

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

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

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

Re:Censorship (-1, Flamebait)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 2 years ago | (#42139107)

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

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139321)

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

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

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

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

Re:Censorship (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 years ago | (#42139705)

The problem is that he is actually right.

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

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

Re:Censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139863)

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

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

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

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

Re:Censorship (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#42139163)

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

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

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

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

Re:Censorship (4, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139487)

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

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

Re:Censorship (5, Funny)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#42139195)

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

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

Re:Censorship (1)

MechaStreisand (585905) | about 2 years ago | (#42139267)

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

Re:Censorship (0, Offtopic)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#42139229)

Friend its getting old... one group howls about those damn eggs and another those fucking chickens. Same guys just different position on the arc of douchebaggery. Corrupt Government feeds evil Corporations. Evil Corporations Corrupts Government. Whores and pimps, they're a matched set, they come like conjoined twins welded at the hip. You can have honest government. you just have to make it COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT. You can have honest Corporations, sorry, that's a flat out lie. Abolish corporations, they're a boil on the ass of society and they are nothing but disasters waiting to happen. Create other vehicles for people to combine resources into privately held business and hold them to account for the deeds they do. If they get caught trying to make government do something it shouldn't, fine them into the stone age and use the money to take care of sick babies and old folks.

We have every means at our disposal to create a body of zero sum games and clever social systems expressly designed to prevent the undue concentration of wealth and power while amply rewarding hard work, creative genius and in general managing something resembling a meritocracy. Its time to inspire the best in being human while limiting and managing the worst. Look at where the pointy sharp objects are in our system and whip a little social nerf on them so people can't fatally fuck up. As long as people are ignorant, greedy and self obsessed, bad things will happen. We can mitigate the disasters though, while still ensuring the maximum freedom and capacity to be human is preserved. That is a worthy goal for this generation./p>

Re:Censorship (4, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139473)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you unions!

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

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

Re:Censorship (0)

gagol (583737) | about 2 years ago | (#42139895)

Unions would not have been invented in the first place if corporations were not soulless greedy entities sucking the life out of everything. Look for the root cause.

Re:Censorship (3)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#42140021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you unions!

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

Thank you for this fascinating review on the evils of unions. So first all, there was a time when unions were useful, they prevent business owners from working people to death or locking them in small rooms that were fire hazards. Sadly unions became overrun by organized crime and the leadership of many unions went off the deep end.. nobody here is disputing unions in the United States are messed up.

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

One of the most brilliant contributions of our founding fathers was "Check and Balances" in the government. Thus preventing any one branch from becoming more powerful that the others and subsequently becoming a force of tyranny. That is a zero sum game. Look up game theory and Nash Equilibrium. The point is that we can socially engineer our business and government to function in a way that is fundamentally transparent and conducive to social responsibility. We can for instance design government to incorporate larger participation by a wider segment of the society, eliminate professional politicians, remove the profit motive both from serving in government and as a useful means to buy power. For instance, if state A elected state B's representatives, They'd want to choose someone good (so they would get a good shake when it came state B's turn to elect their representative) by the same token they would want to elect someone who was fair and wouldn't put one state ahead of the welfare of the entire nation. So we would be assured great representatives who balanced representing their states with the greater good of the entire nation. That's using game theory to engineer a more productive government. That's what I mean by making the government effective. At the same time we need to separate government and business.

Re:Censorship (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#42139391)

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

Re:Censorship (3, Informative)

klingers48 (968406) | about 2 years ago | (#42139113)

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

Piracy site Newzbin2 gives up and closes 15 months after block

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

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139123)

Corporations are an extension of the government. They are modern day titled lords and often have the king over a barrel. Saying they do anything better than government ever could is nonsensical.

Re:Censorship (1)

Shoten (260439) | about 2 years ago | (#42139211)

Corporations do it better than governments ever could.

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

Re:Censorship (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | about 2 years ago | (#42139249)

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

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139729)

Corporations do it better than governments ever could.

There was no Game of Thrones series to download in USSR or East Germany.

1-0

There are no Girls gone Wild dramas to download in Iran or Libya.

2 - 0

There are no Penn & Teller to download in Egypt or Palestine.

3 - 0

Goverments still win in the censorship department.

Re:Censorship (1)

Airobot (2758201) | about 2 years ago | (#42139913)

really?

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139989)

Really.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42138949)

... we don't have the money to replace them ...

But you're a fee-for-use service. What did you spend the money on?

Re:Why? (1)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 2 years ago | (#42138975)

Hosting most likely....

TANSTAAFL... someone, somewhere, pays... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42138991)

Our servers have been unstable and crashing on a regular basis meaning the NZBs & NFOs are unavailable for long periods and we don't have the money to replace them.

It costs much more to run than we bring in, It just doesn't stack up.

another dot.com bites the dust (3, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#42138957)

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

Re:another dot.com bites the dust (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139047)

fuckedcompany.com is... fucked...

stack overflow of fucking! every nerds dream.

Re:another dot.com bites the dust (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about 2 years ago | (#42139443)

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

Kthxbai.

No reason not to release codebase as open source (4, Insightful)

Paran (28208) | about 2 years ago | (#42138971)

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

Re:No reason not to release codebase as open sourc (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139155)

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

TFA: "the NZBs & NFOs are unavailable for long periods"

Yo dawg, if only there were some way to make (crappy forum-based back-end or GUI-based) posting software automatically crosspost the .nzb to a newsgroup that held nothing but .nzb files.

Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42138987)

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

Seems not too hard for some people. [bitusenet.com]

Re:Bitcoin (1)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 2 years ago | (#42139005)

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

+Bitcoins (2)

u64 (1450711) | about 2 years ago | (#42139323)

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

Re:+Bitcoins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139447)

Certainly, if they decided to continue running at a loss for some time with the hopes of resolving their issues Bitcoin would be a good fit for the interim (Wikileaks did this while trying to get more popular payment methods back online). However, Newzbin don't intend to run their service at a loss any longer and Bitcoin is not popular enough (even in their demographic) to support them alone.

Given the rate at which Bitcoin is growing I would guess that 2 years from now Bitcoin would be a consideration but, at present, it's not up to the task.

Google Groups next? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42138999)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Google Groups next? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139025)

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

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

Aye, dreadful (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139041)

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

But nobody cares.

Re:Google Groups next? (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | about 2 years ago | (#42139293)

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

Re:Google Groups next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139297)

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

and, interestingly, some of the older content which was there 3 years ago, and had been there since the days of Deja News, no longer is.

A couple of months ago I had occasion to try and find a couple of old postings I'd made in a long forgotten flamewar in one of the archaeology groups to print them off for someone. Now, 3 years ago (last time I nostalgia'd) they were there, today I can't find them no matter how devious a search term I try. Maybe I'm just getting old, and the brain is failing, but when I search the archives for stuff I do have hard copy of (from Deja News), I cant find it in the Google archives either, and, doing a search on postings made by one of my old aliases comes up real short on numbers (10 years of posting using this alias - 26 posts in the archive, eh? I used to spend hours every night on Usenet whilst doing the usual systems crap).

I do have local copies on tape/disk somewhere (looks over at the spindles containing 100's of backup CDs and DVDs, shudders at the though of trying to find them on them...and the box of backup tapes in the loft), I think I should sort a lot of it out over the Christmas holidays and make them a present of the data.

Re:Google Groups next? (1)

zootie (190797) | about 2 years ago | (#42139723)

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

Hope you find your postings...

Seriously (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 2 years ago | (#42139027)

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

Re:Seriously (3, Funny)

suso (153703) | about 2 years ago | (#42139051)

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

The irony is your username is grumpyman.

Re:Seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139797)

that's not irony you dolt. go sit in the corner

Re:Seriously (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139053)

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

Re:Seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139073)

There are other services that index the posts. Some are free. Newzbin was not the only one, although it was one of the oldest. My sub ran out a a few months ago. Good thing I procrastinated with the renewal!

Re:Seriously (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 2 years ago | (#42139089)

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

Re:Seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139199)

NZBs came before Newzbin. The problem was that you still had to download all the headers to find the NZB. Sites like Newzbin made it easier by collecting all the NZBs in one place and generating one if the original poster didn't make one..

There are still lots of other providers available. There's even stuff like Newznab to host your own website and generate NZBs locally. It's just not feasible for most home users to index more than a handful of groups or keep that long of a history.

Re:Seriously (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139777)

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

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

Re:Seriously (2)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#42139059)

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

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

Re:Seriously (5, Informative)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#42139067)

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

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

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

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

Re:Seriously (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#42139307)

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

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

Re:Seriously (3, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139523)

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

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

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

Re:Seriously (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#42139577)

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

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

Re:Seriously (3, Informative)

zootie (190797) | about 2 years ago | (#42139833)

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

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

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

Re:Seriously (3, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#42139153)

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

Re:Seriously (1)

Volastic (2781511) | about 2 years ago | (#42139383)

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

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

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

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

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

That's OK - there's Gmail (3, Informative)

rueger (210566) | about 2 years ago | (#42139109)

Which, according The Reg, will now allow a 10 gig attachment. [theregister.co.uk]

Google vs MPAA??

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 2 years ago | (#42139303)

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

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

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

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

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#42139319)

Your gmail is not public, or is it?

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

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139709)

Just share the account details?

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#42139767)

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

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139787)

Gmail just became the new darknet. YES!

Re:That's OK - there's Gmail (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139825)

No it won't. It's just an integrated link to share a file from Google Drive. The file has to already exist in Google Drive, and the sharing permissions have to be set. It's really just a shortcut to having to go to Drive and share-and-email the file link.

So long, Usenet. (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#42139151)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (1, Flamebait)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139253)

Why not?

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

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#42139327)

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

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

Spam is an issue, can't deny that.

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139433)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 2 years ago | (#42139477)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139687)

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

Of course you compare with good web forums, but a lot of them aren't that good. The way conversation threads are handled in most web forums is vastly inferior to what even basic newsreaders offer. A separated tree view and message content view where the tree view can handle nesting to arbitrary depths is not something I see often on the web, and never as convenient as in a newsreader. And messages are often distorted on webforums. Leading spaces are seen as a problem in Python by many because of that, but in my view a communication channel that distorts messages is simply not fit for the purpose. In usenet there was a good separation between subjects, finding an answer to a Python related question would not send you to a Java forum, searching with DejaNews was straightforward. When discussions moved to web forums search engine results became a mess, because there isn't such a clear place to look for answers anymore, they are all over the web, and website with language related forums often had a menus mentioning a shitload of languages on every page effectively linking all languages to all discussions. That has improved considerably, but I still see it as solving a problem that just didn't exist in usenet and shouldn't exist in a medium that really is fit for its purpose. The versatility of the web is also its weakness: everything gets mixed up with everything.

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#42139775)

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

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | about 2 years ago | (#42139299)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#42139499)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | about 2 years ago | (#42139595)

The money people pay to access the servers.

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 2 years ago | (#42139793)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

Dot.Com.CEO (624226) | about 2 years ago | (#42139943)

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

Re:So long, Usenet. (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#42139889)

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

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

Was good while it lasted.. (2)

lemur3 (997863) | about 2 years ago | (#42139159)

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

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

Now maybe finally we'll see the end (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139237)

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

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end (1)

willy_me (212994) | about 2 years ago | (#42139345)

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

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end (2)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139421)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Now maybe finally we'll see the end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139925)

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

Unless floppy disc spanning became all the rage in the RAR archiving world, I fail to see how "hundreds of files" are being generated for roughly the same amount of content I used to see within 40 to 50 posts. Hell, if anything, the individual RAR files should have gotten bigger over time, as our bandwidth increased, thereby making the total number of posts needed actually smaller, not larger.

Perhaps this was part of the overall downfall. I'd be rather annoyed too if I was starting at part 2 of 415 to download a few gigs.

Scale down (1)

u64 (1450711) | about 2 years ago | (#42139317)

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

Re:Scale down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139961)

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

Given the fact that the average twenty-something doesn't have a damn clue as to what we're talking about here (USENET), I'd say the expectations were lowered already based on popularity.

Outside of your geek circle, find someone else still using newsfeeds.

Only a problem for binary groups (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139371)

Newzbin2, one of the most recognized index sites for binaries of dubious legality on usenet

Meanwhile, Eternal September [eternalseptember.org] chugs right on with text-only groups. Funny that they don't have these problems, isn't it?

Re:Only a problem for binary groups (1)

Adrian Harvey (6578) | about 2 years ago | (#42139897)

I think you meant www.eternal-september.org [eternal-september.org]

Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139373)

Bitcoin too hard for 90%? Are you kidding me? It's not too hard for WordPress, Reddit, and hundreds of other large companies to accept bitcoins.

Re:Bitcoin (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#42139465)

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

Re:Bitcoin (1, Informative)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42139543)

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

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

This is exactly why Bitcoin exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42139807)

We don't need the stinking Paypal criminals of this world to tell us who we can and who we can't do business with. This is like outlawing streets because criminals can drive on them... Madness this way lies.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?