🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 27, 12:23 am, Soundhaspriority <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<snip>

Stop posting you bullshit where it doesn't belong and no one's
interested, shit-for-brains

In article 
<8234f631-0d4a-4e41-a2b6-df7b233381af@z26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
 Tom <recalcitrant_redneck@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jul 27, 12:23�am, Soundhaspriority <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> Stop posting you bullshit where it doesn't belong and no one's
> interested, shit-for-brains

There IS no place where it belongs, or where anyone is interested, IMO.

On Jul 26, 8:23 am, Soundhaspriority <nowh...@nowhere.com> wrote:
[snip]

So killfile the fucker.

industrial_one@hotmail.com wrote...
> So killfile the fucker.
> 
Not practical as he is using identical ID so
you'd killfile the real Bob as well
Unless you can filter on headers as the impostor posts using
the McIntosh version of Outlook.

-- 
Ken
www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

On Jul 27, 7:53 pm, UnsteadyKen <unsteadyken...@gmail.com> wrote:
> industrial_...@hotmail.com wrote...
> > So killfile the fucker.
>
> Not practical as he is using identical ID so
> you'd killfile the real Bob as well
> Unless you can filter on headers as the impostor posts using
> the McIntosh version of Outlook.
>
> --
> Kenwww.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

I haven't tried any real Usenet newsreader yet. There's a hack for
Google Groups for killfiling, but I don't hang on Usenet much anyway
so never cared to look into it. I wonder if I should buy UseNext to
download loot. I heard alt.binaries is the fastest substitute for P2P.

industrial_one@hotmail.com wrote...
> I haven't tried any real Usenet newsreader yet.
> 
Tut tut, it is a much better method than
Google groups.
If your ISP has a news server then try Gravity, its good and FREE!
Link may wrap:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/News-Newsgroups-Blog-
Tools/MicroPlanet-Gravity.shtml
-- 
Ken
http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

UnsteadyKen wrote:

>If your ISP has a news server then try Gravity, its good and FREE!
>Link may wrap:
>http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/News-Newsgroups-Blog-
>Tools/MicroPlanet-Gravity.shtml

Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
post an unbroken long link.

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/News-Newsgroups-Blog-Tools/MicroPlanet-Gravity.shtml

dizzy  wrote... 

> 
> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
> post an unbroken long link.

That depends on what you've got your line wrap set at I think.

Gravity is a bit easier to set up IMO.
 

-- 
Ken
Analogue link site:
http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

On Aug 6, 7:02 pm, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> UnsteadyKen wrote:
> >If your ISP has a news server then try Gravity, its good and FREE!
> >Link may wrap:
> >http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/News-Newsgroups-Blog-
> >Tools/MicroPlanet-Gravity.shtml
>
> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
> post an unbroken long link.
>
> http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/News-Newsgroups-Blog-Tools/Micr...

Can it access alt.binaries?

Industrial One wrote:

>On Aug 6, 7:02 pm, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
>> post an unbroken long link.
>
>Can it access alt.binaries?

Sure.  Why would it not?  (Although the pay version (Agent) is needed
for automatic decoding of attachments.)

On Aug 9, 9:39 am, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Industrial One wrote:
> >On Aug 6, 7:02 pm, dizzy <di...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
> >> post an unbroken long link.
>
> >Can it access alt.binaries?
>
> Sure.  Why would it not?  (Although the pay version (Agent) is needed
> for automatic decoding of attachments.)

Dunno, kinda new to the concept of Usenet. As far as I know, this is
how them aging dork hackers used to share/grab their loot back in the
dark ages before there was modern P2P networks. But I've been told
that you can max out any connection here, because the loot is stored
on ISPs newservers.

I got a couple questions:

1. Is the traffic encrypted?
2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?
3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
FastTrack) overall, in terms of security, stability, upload/download
querying etc.?

I'm also aware that unpopular content untouched for a week is
automatically removed, which is one thing P2P networks have over
Usenet, but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has over P2P, so
meh.

And one more thing: you mentioned decoding. Did you mean decrypting? I
heard large files are split into chunks and re-ordering the chunks
correctly requires much user input, and for the user to not be an
average dipshit netizen who can only use idiot-proof apps like
BitTorrent. I'm a fast learner, so that won't be a problem. Just put
the process in a nutshell.

Industrial One  <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Dunno, kinda new to the concept of Usenet. As far as I know, this is
>how them aging dork hackers used to share/grab their loot back in the
>dark ages before there was modern P2P networks. But I've been told
>that you can max out any connection here, because the loot is stored
>on ISPs newservers.

No, Usenet is MUCH older than that.  Usenet started out in the eighties
doing store and forward text messaging over uucp lines.  I suggest that
you go to news.announce.newusers and read the general discussion about
what Usneet is and how it got that way.  Traditionally most newsreaders
would force users to read through n.a.n before going on to anything else,
but sadly this is not common any more.

>I got a couple questions:
>
>1. Is the traffic encrypted?

No.  Usenet came out of an era where privacy and security were not primary
concerns, and where users were trusted much more than they are today.

>2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?

No.  Most news servers will put your sending IP address in the header.
Some won't, but it depends on your ISP's server.  It's generally polite
to do so.

There are still people reading news on machines without actual internet
service... in those cases, the path in the header will usually indicate
the server that the message came from and you know the users are logged
directly onto the server.

>3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
>FastTrack) overall, in terms of security, stability, upload/download
>querying etc.?

It's totally different and it's not intended for that.  It's a system
intended for discussion groups, which got extended to carry binary files
as well when bandwidth got cheap.  Although the binary files now make up
the majority of the traffic they actually are the least useful and important
part of Usenet.

>I'm also aware that unpopular content untouched for a week is
>automatically removed, which is one thing P2P networks have over
>Usenet, but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
>bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has over P2P, so
>meh.

That is something your server does.  In general, all messages get expired
after a certain time.  Some servers set things up so that messages get
expired faster if they are read more.  Some servers set things up so that
when they run low on disk space they start dumping the oldest messages until
the spool is at a reasonable level.  Different servers have different
expiration rules, and expiring after a week seems like a reasonable thing
to do.

Usneet is not for long-term file storage, it's for short-term transfer of
time-dependant messages.  Don't expect anything to last long.

>And one more thing: you mentioned decoding. Did you mean decrypting? I
>heard large files are split into chunks and re-ordering the chunks
>correctly requires much user input, and for the user to not be an
>average dipshit netizen who can only use idiot-proof apps like
>BitTorrent. I'm a fast learner, so that won't be a problem. Just put
>the process in a nutshell.

A lot of newsreaders do this automatically.  Some don't do it at all.
So it depends on what client you are using.  I use rn, which makes reading
multipart binaries a major pain.  Other folks use newsreader that make 
multipart binaries appear like a single message.

There are hundreds of different newsreaders out there for different computer
systems, and there are thousands of different news servers out there.  They
are all different because they're all set up by different people with different
aims and constraints.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Industrial One" wrote (from GoogleGroups) ...
>  dizzy  wrote:
>> Industrial One wrote:
>> >dizzy  wrote:
>> >> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
>> >> post an unbroken long link.
>>
>> >Can it access alt.binaries?
>>
>> Sure.  Why would it not?  (Although the pay version (Agent) is needed
>> for automatic decoding of attachments.)
>
> Dunno, kinda new to the concept of Usenet. As far as I know, this is
> how them aging dork hackers used to share/grab their loot

"Back then" our "loot" was the exchange of text-based messages
(such as what you are reading right now).  For that matter, same
as today. The valuable content on Usenet is the text-based discussions.

> back in the dark ages before there was modern P2P networks.

Usenet was one of the forefathers of modern P2P technology. It
is still effectively "P2P". But it mostly uses newer ways of inter-
connecting, such as "the internet", rather than dialup, UUCP,
or even exchanging data tapes.

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon on the
freeway with boxes of computer tapes in the back."

> But I've been told that you can max out any connection here,
> because the loot is stored on ISPs newservers.

Maybe. Depends on your definition of "max out", and
"connection". Note further than few and fewer newsservers
are being operated by ISPs.

> I got a couple questions:
>
> 1. Is the traffic encrypted?

No.

> 2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?

No.

> 3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
> FastTrack) overall, in terms of security,

There is NO security at all. You can safely assume that any
message you send into Usenet can be read by anyone for the
rest of history.

> stability,

Since it is a grass-roots, peer-to-peer, store-n-forward network
system, it is not reliant on any one (or several) servers for the
normal flow of information.  This is generally the MOST reliable
system because not only doesn't it have a single point of failure,
but there is also no central management or support.

In much the same way that amateur radio ("ham operators")
constitute the most reliable short-range and long-range emergency
communication because it is NOT dependent on the power or telecom
grid (or any government acencies, etc.), it is mostly battery-operable,
and privately maintained by  hundreds of thousands of individuals
around the planet.

> upload/download

That depends entirely on what you conection is like, and who
your NNTP service is.

> querying etc.?

Since Usenet is only a real-time message exchange, there was no
intention of keeping archives. OTOH, there was nothing to stop
anyone with enough disc space from saving messages. In 1995, a
guy in Texas started "DejaNews" to do just that: archive Usenet
messages. The archive was later sold to Google who continues
to maintain a searchable online archive of Usenet message traffic.

From your message headers, you appear to be reading this on
the Google Groups web-based portal into Usenet. Note that
Google has no proprietary connection with Usenet. Google is
just annother of the thousands of peer Usenet servers on the
planet. They happen to have lots of disk space, so they can
continue to save Usenet messages essentially "forever" (vs.
the few days/weeks/months that most NNTP servers retain
messages.)

After Google bought the DejaNews Usenet archives, they
added the feature to allow users such as yourself to view the
current newsgroup traffic, and reply to it, effective setting up
a free web-based newsreader. Most of us despise both their
implementation of the web-based interface, but also their
corporate indifference to keeping Usenet relative clean.
Opening Usenet up to your average random web browwer
has made Google Groups clearly the curerent largest source
of spam and assorted rubbish on Usenet.

> I'm also aware that unpopular content untouched for a week is
> automatically removed,

I've only been on Usenet for ~15 years and I've never heard of
such a thing.  Different news servers have different policies for
retention time. Maybe some of it is based on access statistics,
but none of the ones I've ever used.

> which is one thing P2P networks have over Usenet,

You seem to think that "Usenet" is some monolithic, uniform
system where all the nodes are managed alike. It is none of
those things.

> but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
> bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has
> over P2P, so  meh.

You'll have to explain what that means if you want anyone to
respond to it.  Note further that "P2P networks" is not a
monolithic operation, either. They all have certain quirks and
design features different from one-another.

> And one more thing: you mentioned decoding. Did you mean
> decrypting?

Since Usenet traffic is not encrypted (unless you encrypt it
before sending), then he likely meant "decoding".

> I heard large files are split into chunks

Because Usenet was designed for text messages which are
not terribly long. A few KB at most.

> and re-ordering the chunks correctly requires much user input,
> and for the user to not be an average dipshit netizen who can >
> only use idiot-proof apps like BitTorrent.

Young children who have learned to count to 10 can do it.
If visible sequence numbers in the subject line (like "7/12")
is to difficult, then that is rather a good thing, IMHO, It keeps
the really stupid people away.

> I'm a fast learner, so that won't be a problem. Just put
> the process in a nutshell.

The subject line contains the sequence number. Simple as that. 

On Aug 9, 1:32 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> "Industrial One" wrote (from GoogleGroups) ...
>
> >  dizzy  wrote:
> >> Industrial One wrote:
> >> >dizzy  wrote:
> >> >> Better yet, try Free Agent, which doesn't suck, as it can actually
> >> >> post an unbroken long link.
>
> >> >Can it access alt.binaries?
>
> >> Sure.  Why would it not?  (Although the pay version (Agent) is needed
> >> for automatic decoding of attachments.)
>
> > Dunno, kinda new to the concept of Usenet. As far as I know, this is
> > how them aging dork hackers used to share/grab their loot
>
> "Back then" our "loot" was the exchange of text-based messages
> (such as what you are reading right now).  For that matter, same
> as today. The valuable content on Usenet is the text-based discussions.

I'm talking about files, as in MP3s, videos, documents, apps, ya know.

> > back in the dark ages before there was modern P2P networks.
>
> Usenet was one of the forefathers of modern P2P technology. It
> is still effectively "P2P". But it mostly uses newer ways of inter-
> connecting, such as "the internet", rather than dialup, UUCP,
> or even exchanging data tapes.

I know.

> "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station-wagon on the
> freeway with boxes of computer tapes in the back."
>
> > But I've been told that you can max out any connection here,
> > because the loot is stored on ISPs newservers.
>
> Maybe. Depends on your definition of "max out", and
> "connection". Note further than few and fewer newsservers
> are being operated by ISPs.

Connection = download speed. My max is 750 KB/s.
Max out = maximizing your connection speed. E.g. downloading at 750 KB/
s instead of 50 on BitTorrent.

> > I got a couple questions:
>
> > 1. Is the traffic encrypted?
>
> No.

Shit.

> > 2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?
>
> No.

Fuck! I thought transfers on Usenet were designed to be re-routed thru
a numbers of other nodes/servers before reaching the destination. In
this case, when I download a song and my request is queried thru other
nodes before reaching me, the RIAA can't do shit and I'm safe. If
Usenet can't accomplish this, then I guess it ain't the network I
thought it was.

> > 3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
> > FastTrack) overall, in terms of security,
>
> There is NO security at all. You can safely assume that any
> message you send into Usenet can be read by anyone for the
> rest of history.

God damn it!

> > stability,
>
> Since it is a grass-roots, peer-to-peer, store-n-forward network
> system, it is not reliant on any one (or several) servers for the
> normal flow of information.  This is generally the MOST reliable
> system because not only doesn't it have a single point of failure,
> but there is also no central management or support.

Yeah, it's decentralized like modern P2P networks. I like that.

> In much the same way that amateur radio ("ham operators")
> constitute the most reliable short-range and long-range emergency
> communication because it is NOT dependent on the power or telecom
> grid (or any government acencies, etc.), it is mostly battery-operable,
> and privately maintained by  hundreds of thousands of individuals
> around the planet.
>
> > upload/download
>
> That depends entirely on what you conection is like, and who
> your NNTP service is.

I mean, the process of uploading new stuff (like a new scene release.)

> After Google bought the DejaNews Usenet archives, they
> added the feature to allow users such as yourself to view the
> current newsgroup traffic, and reply to it, effective setting up
> a free web-based newsreader. Most of us despise both their
> implementation of the web-based interface, but also their
> corporate indifference to keeping Usenet relative clean.
> Opening Usenet up to your average random web browwer
> has made Google Groups clearly the curerent largest source
> of spam and assorted rubbish on Usenet.

Yeah, Google Groups has been failing me lately, delaying my messages
for up to 24 hours, not displaying all messages in a cross-posted
thread, not supporting HTML codes like before. I've been intending to
switch.

> > which is one thing P2P networks have over Usenet,
>
> You seem to think that "Usenet" is some monolithic, uniform
> system where all the nodes are managed alike. It is none of
> those things.
>
> > but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
> > bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has
> > over P2P, so  meh.
>
> You'll have to explain what that means if you want anyone to
> respond to it.  Note further that "P2P networks" is not a
> monolithic operation, either. They all have certain quirks and
> design features different from one-another.

An ideal decentralized network would be operated by a professional,
trustworthy closed-source client that bootstraps, assigns peers with
fast connections to become supernodes, who will be constantly
connected to each other, each about a thousand peers connected to
them, their IP, list of files and the metadata of the files, and when
a peer searches for something, his request is queried to the supernode
he is connected to, which searches his list of peers for matches, and
passes the request on to another supernode if no matches are found and
so on, when a match is found, the IP of that peer and the files that
match are sent to the original requester and he starts downloading.
The communication between supernodes and peers should be heavily
encrypted, to prevent gaming the network. The list of supernodes must
have a way to be always accessible, as most are temporary and may not
be supernodes tomorrow, thus the network could lose its scalability if
users quit using the software for a week and are now unable to connect
'cuz their list is outdated. Preferably, at least one supernode must
be permanent, or have a central directory server keep track, where the
network client connects to automatically. (Kazaa made this mistake by
having connection to the network dependant on their official website
existing. When the RIAA shut it down, obviously it was harder to keep
the network alive.
Problem with this technology is that content availability depend on
the users will to share and most users even by today upload about 50
KB/s on average, even less as they are sharing more than one file at a
time. That is what I'm saying. On Usenet, the users only upload
content once and then it's available to be downloaded at full speed by
anyone. No skin off your ass.

> > I heard large files are split into chunks
>
> Because Usenet was designed for text messages which are
> not terribly long. A few KB at most.

A FEW KB........... So if I download a 700-MB movie, I'd be putting
together 700,000 fucking pieces together???????

> Young children who have learned to count to 10 can do it.
> If visible sequence numbers in the subject line (like "7/12")
> is to difficult, then that is rather a good thing, IMHO, It keeps
> the really stupid people away.

That's cool, the net could use some ethnic cleansing like they did
with jews in real life.

> > I'm a fast learner, so that won't be a problem. Just put
> > the process in a nutshell.
>
> The subject line contains the sequence number. Simple as that.

It's automated then?

Damn, missed this post:

On Aug 9, 11:30 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Industrial One  <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> No, Usenet is MUCH older than that.  Usenet started out in the eighties
> doing store and forward text messaging over uucp lines.  I suggest that
> you go to news.announce.newusers and read the general discussion about
> what Usneet is and how it got that way.  Traditionally most newsreaders
> would force users to read through n.a.n before going on to anything else,
> but sadly this is not common any more.

1979, I know. Crazy.

> >I got a couple questions:
>
> >1. Is the traffic encrypted?
>
> No.  Usenet came out of an era where privacy and security were not primary
> concerns, and where users were trusted much more than they are today.

Yeah right... hackers owned the place back then, script kiddies
followed and finally: dipshits. What threat could they be? Copyright
infringement ain't a government concern. Access to the Munitions Black
book and Anarchy text files were, especially if the secret service had
to force some newsservers to shut down back in the late 80s. Not to
mention the lolicon japs kept spreading around the same time.

> >2. Is your IP concealed. If so, how?
>
> No.  Most news servers will put your sending IP address in the header.
> Some won't, but it depends on your ISP's server.  It's generally polite
> to do so.

So the MAFIAA can pay me a visit once they see it? Like they did
Jammie Thomas? Fuck that!

> >3. How does it compare to modern P2P networks (e.g. Gnutella/
> >FastTrack) overall, in terms of security, stability, upload/download
> >querying etc.?
>
> It's totally different and it's not intended for that.  It's a system
> intended for discussion groups, which got extended to carry binary files
> as well when bandwidth got cheap.  Although the binary files now make up
> the majority of the traffic they actually are the least useful and important
> part of Usenet.

you're breakin my balls here >:\

> >I'm also aware that unpopular content untouched for a week is
> >automatically removed, which is one thing P2P networks have over
> >Usenet, but also makes it depend on a users will to share (usually
> >bullshit dial-up speeds of like 5 KB/s), which Usenet has over P2P, so
> >meh.
>
> That is something your server does.  In general, all messages get expired
> after a certain time.  Some servers set things up so that messages get
> expired faster if they are read more.  Some servers set things up so that
> when they run low on disk space they start dumping the oldest messages until
> the spool is at a reasonable level.  Different servers have different
> expiration rules, and expiring after a week seems like a reasonable thing
> to do.

I see.

> Usneet is not for long-term file storage, it's for short-term transfer of
> time-dependant messages.  Don't expect anything to last long.

: /

> There are hundreds of different newsreaders out there for different computer
> systems, and there are thousands of different news servers out there.  They
> are all different because they're all set up by different people with different
> aims and constraints.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I see.

On Aug 9, 3:32 pm, "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@xp7rt.net> wrote:
> "Industrial One" wrote (from GoogleGroups) ...
> > And one more thing: you mentioned decoding. Did you mean
> > decrypting?
>
> Since Usenet traffic is not encrypted (unless you encrypt it
> before sending), then he likely meant "decoding".

Yep, that'd be exactly what he meant. As the wise swordsman said, "Let
me 'splain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up."

When you post a message onto Usenet, it can pass through dozens of
machines on its way to other readers. Each machine will take the
incoming text, and convert it into its own native text format.

Today, an 8-bit byte is so common that most people forget (or are not
aware) that a byte is not /necessarily/ 8 bits - it depends on the
model of computer. In the early days of Usenet, byte sizes as small as
6 bits were fairly common.

So if your machine uses 8 bits to a byte, and the storing machine uses
6 bits, the storing machine will convert from your 8-bit character
into its own 6-bit character. If all you are sending is text - which
is what Usenet was designed for - no problems.

But, binary data does not like to be converted like that. So, various
encoding schemes were devised, such as base64, uuencode and so on,
which would convert binary data into text-only characters. The
intermediate machines can do what they like with the text - when it
reaches the other end, the text remains intact. The receiving machine
can take the text, decode it and produce an exact duplicate of the
binary file.

HTH!

--
Jim

Industrial One  <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Fuck! I thought transfers on Usenet were designed to be re-routed thru
>a numbers of other nodes/servers before reaching the destination. In
>this case, when I download a song and my request is queried thru other
>nodes before reaching me, the RIAA can't do shit and I'm safe. If
>Usenet can't accomplish this, then I guess it ain't the network I
>thought it was.

You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.

Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
to be tracked.  Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
wasn't designed by idiots.  Without having path information, it's 
impossible to debug propagation problems.

>An ideal decentralized network would be operated by a professional,
>trustworthy closed-source client that bootstraps, assigns peers with
>fast connections to become supernodes, who will be constantly
>connected to each other, each about a thousand peers connected to
>them, their IP, list of files and the metadata of the files, and when
>a peer searches for something, his request is queried to the supernode
>he is connected to, which searches his list of peers for matches, and
>passes the request on to another supernode if no matches are found and
>so on, when a match is found, the IP of that peer and the files that
>match are sent to the original requester and he starts downloading.
>The communication between supernodes and peers should be heavily
>encrypted, to prevent gaming the network. The list of supernodes must
>have a way to be always accessible, as most are temporary and may not
>be supernodes tomorrow, thus the network could lose its scalability if
>users quit using the software for a week and are now unable to connect
>'cuz their list is outdated. Preferably, at least one supernode must
>be permanent, or have a central directory server keep track, where the
>network client connects to automatically. (Kazaa made this mistake by
>having connection to the network dependant on their official website
>existing. When the RIAA shut it down, obviously it was harder to keep
>the network alive.

A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
property.  Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either.  If we had to
build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
--scott
-- 
"C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Industrial One" wrote ...
> That's cool, the net could use some ethnic cleansing like they did
> with jews in real life.

plonk  (look it up) 

"Industrial One"  wrote ...
> I'm talking about files, as in MP3s, videos, documents, apps, ya know.

Then go back to your P2P-land. Usenet is not for you.

> Fuck! I thought transfers on Usenet were designed to be re-routed thru
> a numbers of other nodes/servers before reaching the destination. In
> this case, when I download a song and my request is queried thru other
> nodes before reaching me, the RIAA can't do shit and I'm safe. If
> Usenet can't accomplish this, then I guess it ain't the network I
> thought it was.

Usenet is not the network for you. Go back to where you came from.
"These aren't the 'droids you're looking for." 

On Aug 9, 9:20 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
> the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.
>
> Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
> to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
> to be tracked.  Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
> wasn't designed by idiots.  Without having path information, it's
> impossible to debug propagation problems.
>
>
>
> A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
> property.  Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
> for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either.  If we had to
> build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
> traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Oh blow it out your ass. Usenet was designed and maintained by
hackers, and later became a warez trade market for crackers during
that era. I'm destroying Usenet? Nigga pleez!

As for "intellectual property," music nowadays is almost as worthless
as the shitstains I wipe off my boot. The music industry is a large
cock-whore administration who go on all these crusades to fuck over
their own customers because they lose roughly 5% of their profits.
They got no problem polluting the radio with a track roughly the same
as the last 500 prequels for the last 10 years and they still expect
to sue you once you get addicted to their untalented, tasteless,
unmelodical bullshit.

Furthermore, most of the loot I pirate I have already seen in theatres
a long time ago, and still own the tapes/DVDs that are at a location I
have no access to. Some of the shit is not even sold anymore, or
extremely hard to find, so why the hell would I waste my time trying
to be legit? 'Cuz the whoreporations want me to forget about it and
focus on their latest, top-priced flicks?

As far as traceability goes. Sharman networks pulled that stunt with
Kazaa by tracking down what you search for/download, and we invented
Kazaa Lite that waved "fuck you" in a subtle way.

One of the hackers commandments are voluntary identity, anonymity,
security and overall privacy. "Information must be free and accessible
to anyone." And USENET was founded by hackers. If you disagree, then
you're the one who should piss off.

On Aug 10, 3:22 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 9:20 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
> > the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.
>
> > Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
> > to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
> > to be tracked.  Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
> > wasn't designed by idiots.  Without having path information, it's
> > impossible to debug propagation problems.
>
> > A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
> > property.  Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
> > for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either.  If we had to
> > build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
> > traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
> > --scott
> > --
> > "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> Oh blow it out your ass. Usenet was designed and maintained by
> hackers, and later became a warez trade market for crackers during
> that era. I'm destroying Usenet? Nigga pleez!
>
> As for "intellectual property," music nowadays is almost as worthless
> as the shitstains I wipe off my boot. The music industry is a large
> cock-whore administration who go on all these crusades to fuck over
> their own customers because they lose roughly 5% of their profits.
> They got no problem polluting the radio with a track roughly the same
> as the last 500 prequels for the last 10 years and they still expect
> to sue you once you get addicted to their untalented, tasteless,
> unmelodical bullshit.
>
> Furthermore, most of the loot I pirate I have already seen in theatres
> a long time ago, and still own the tapes/DVDs that are at a location I
> have no access to. Some of the shit is not even sold anymore, or
> extremely hard to find, so why the hell would I waste my time trying
> to be legit? 'Cuz the whoreporations want me to forget about it and
> focus on their latest, top-priced flicks?
>
> As far as traceability goes. Sharman networks pulled that stunt with
> Kazaa by tracking down what you search for/download, and we invented
> Kazaa Lite that waved "fuck you" in a subtle way.
>
> One of the hackers commandments are voluntary identity, anonymity,
> security and overall privacy. "Information must be free and accessible
> to anyone." And USENET was founded by hackers. If you disagree, then
> you're the one who should piss off.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Please take your comments to another newsgroup,
and stop crossposting. This is a professional
audio newsgroup. Not a how to steal with technology
newsgroup.
Your attitude towards intellectual
property, your getto wannabe posing, and your
ethnic cleansing remarks don't belong
in any discussion thread.
Please read the user agreement for Google Groups,
you've already manage to breach it.
Usenet managed to get by fine before you stumbled
into it. This is not the anonymous data funnel you're
hoping for. Please learn some net manners.
No need to reply, please.

On Aug 10, 3:11 pm, Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion <westpase-
he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 3:22 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 9:20 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > > You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
> > > the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.
>
> > > Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
> > > to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
> > > to be tracked.  Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
> > > wasn't designed by idiots.  Without having path information, it's
> > > impossible to debug propagation problems.
>
> > > A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
> > > property.  Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
> > > for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either.  If we had to
> > > build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
> > > traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
> > > --scott
> > > --
> > > "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> > Oh blow it out your ass. Usenet was designed and maintained by
> > hackers, and later became a warez trade market for crackers during
> > that era. I'm destroying Usenet? Nigga pleez!
>
> > As for "intellectual property," music nowadays is almost as worthless
> > as the shitstains I wipe off my boot. The music industry is a large
> > cock-whore administration who go on all these crusades to fuck over
> > their own customers because they lose roughly 5% of their profits.
> > They got no problem polluting the radio with a track roughly the same
> > as the last 500 prequels for the last 10 years and they still expect
> > to sue you once you get addicted to their untalented, tasteless,
> > unmelodical bullshit.
>
> > Furthermore, most of the loot I pirate I have already seen in theatres
> > a long time ago, and still own the tapes/DVDs that are at a location I
> > have no access to. Some of the shit is not even sold anymore, or
> > extremely hard to find, so why the hell would I waste my time trying
> > to be legit? 'Cuz the whoreporations want me to forget about it and
> > focus on their latest, top-priced flicks?
>
> > As far as traceability goes. Sharman networks pulled that stunt with
> > Kazaa by tracking down what you search for/download, and we invented
> > Kazaa Lite that waved "fuck you" in a subtle way.
>
> > One of the hackers commandments are voluntary identity, anonymity,
> > security and overall privacy. "Information must be free and accessible
> > to anyone." And USENET was founded by hackers. If you disagree, then
> > you're the one who should piss off.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Please take your comments to another newsgroup,
> and stop crossposting. This is a professional
> audio newsgroup. Not a how to steal with technology
> newsgroup.
> Your attitude towards intellectual
> property, your getto wannabe posing, and your
> ethnic cleansing remarks don't belong
> in any discussion thread.

And what are you gonna do about it, cuntmuffin? Report me to a
moderator? lol.

> Please read the user agreement for Google Groups,
> you've already manage to breach it.

I give a shit? Google Groups can go suck a fat one, and whoever the
faggot is that went so far to build this jewb piece of shit interface
that allows spambots to freely flood all newsgroups with the latest
news on how mother Russia are slaughtering the walking testicles
(Georgia.) I'm switching to Thunderbird.

> Usenet managed to get by fine before you stumbled
> into it. This is not the anonymous data funnel you're
> hoping for. Please learn some net manners.
> No need to reply, please.

You're right, it's almost 30 years old, I didn't expect something
nearly twice as older than I am to be up to par with the leet systems
we of today.

On Aug 10, 7:18 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 3:11 pm, Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion <westpase-
>
> he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 3:22 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 9, 9:20 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > > > You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
> > > > the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.
>
> > > > Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
> > > > to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
> > > > to be tracked.  Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
> > > > wasn't designed by idiots.  Without having path information, it's
> > > > impossible to debug propagation problems.
>
> > > > A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
> > > > property.  Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
> > > > for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either.  If we had to
> > > > build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
> > > > traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
> > > > --scott
> > > > --
> > > > "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
> > > Oh blow it out your ass. Usenet was designed and maintained by
> > > hackers, and later became a warez trade market for crackers during
> > > that era. I'm destroying Usenet? Nigga pleez!
>
> > > As for "intellectual property," music nowadays is almost as worthless
> > > as the shitstains I wipe off my boot. The music industry is a large
> > > cock-whore administration who go on all these crusades to fuck over
> > > their own customers because they lose roughly 5% of their profits.
> > > They got no problem polluting the radio with a track roughly the same
> > > as the last 500 prequels for the last 10 years and they still expect
> > > to sue you once you get addicted to their untalented, tasteless,
> > > unmelodical bullshit.
>
> > > Furthermore, most of the loot I pirate I have already seen in theatres
> > > a long time ago, and still own the tapes/DVDs that are at a location I
> > > have no access to. Some of the shit is not even sold anymore, or
> > > extremely hard to find, so why the hell would I waste my time trying
> > > to be legit? 'Cuz the whoreporations want me to forget about it and
> > > focus on their latest, top-priced flicks?
>
> > > As far as traceability goes. Sharman networks pulled that stunt with
> > > Kazaa by tracking down what you search for/download, and we invented
> > > Kazaa Lite that waved "fuck you" in a subtle way.
>
> > > One of the hackers commandments are voluntary identity, anonymity,
> > > security and overall privacy. "Information must be free and accessible
> > > to anyone." And USENET was founded by hackers. If you disagree, then
> > > you're the one who should piss off.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Please take your comments to another newsgroup,
> > and stop crossposting. This is a professional
> > audio newsgroup. Not a how to steal with technology
> > newsgroup.
> > Your attitude towards intellectual
> > property, your getto wannabe posing, and your
> > ethnic cleansing remarks don't belong
> > in any discussion thread.
>
> And what are you gonna do about it, cuntmuffin? Report me to a
> moderator? lol.
>
> > Please read the user agreement for Google Groups,
> > you've already manage to breach it.
>
> I give a shit? Google Groups can go suck a fat one, and whoever the
> faggot is that went so far to build this jewb piece of shit interface
> that allows spambots to freely flood all newsgroups with the latest
> news on how mother Russia are slaughtering the walking testicles
> (Georgia.) I'm switching to Thunderbird.
>
> > Usenet managed to get by fine before you stumbled
> > into it. This is not the anonymous data funnel you're
> > hoping for. Please learn some net manners.
> > No need to reply, please.
>
> You're right, it's almost 30 years old, I didn't expect something
> nearly twice as older than I am to be up to par with the leet systems
> we of today.

No, your ISP, Shaw Communications Inc, Suite 800
630 - 3rd Ave. SW, Calgary, AB, CA and let your
parents deal with you.

"Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion" wrote ...
> Please take your comments to another newsgroup,
> and stop crossposting. This is a professional
> audio newsgroup. Not a how to steal with technology
> newsgroup.

Plonk the troll like the rest of us.
And please stop quoting his garbage. 

In article 
<deffe5b7-c620-4975-9b6a-59cb80e40cee@1g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
 Industrial One <industrial_one@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 10, 3:11 pm, Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion <westpase-
> he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 3:22 pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 9, 9:20 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >
> > > > You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
> > > > the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.
> >
> > > > Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
> > > > to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
> > > > to be tracked.  Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
> > > > wasn't designed by idiots.  Without having path information, it's
> > > > impossible to debug propagation problems.
> >
> > > > A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
> > > > property.  Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
> > > > for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either.  If we had to
> > > > build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
> > > > traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
> > > > --scott
> > > > --
> > > > "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> >
> > > Oh blow it out your ass. Usenet was designed and maintained by
> > > hackers, and later became a warez trade market for crackers during
> > > that era. I'm destroying Usenet? Nigga pleez!
> >
> > > As for "intellectual property," music nowadays is almost as worthless
> > > as the shitstains I wipe off my boot. The music industry is a large
> > > cock-whore administration who go on all these crusades to fuck over
> > > their own customers because they lose roughly 5% of their profits.
> > > They got no problem polluting the radio with a track roughly the same
> > > as the last 500 prequels for the last 10 years and they still expect
> > > to sue you once you get addicted to their untalented, tasteless,
> > > unmelodical bullshit.
> >
> > > Furthermore, most of the loot I pirate I have already seen in theatres
> > > a long time ago, and still own the tapes/DVDs that are at a location I
> > > have no access to. Some of the shit is not even sold anymore, or
> > > extremely hard to find, so why the hell would I waste my time trying
> > > to be legit? 'Cuz the whoreporations want me to forget about it and
> > > focus on their latest, top-priced flicks?
> >
> > > As far as traceability goes. Sharman networks pulled that stunt with
> > > Kazaa by tracking down what you search for/download, and we invented
> > > Kazaa Lite that waved "fuck you" in a subtle way.
> >
> > > One of the hackers commandments are voluntary identity, anonymity,
> > > security and overall privacy. "Information must be free and accessible
> > > to anyone." And USENET was founded by hackers. If you disagree, then
> > > you're the one who should piss off.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Please take your comments to another newsgroup,
> > and stop crossposting. This is a professional
> > audio newsgroup. Not a how to steal with technology
> > newsgroup.
> > Your attitude towards intellectual
> > property, your getto wannabe posing, and your
> > ethnic cleansing remarks don't belong
> > in any discussion thread.
> 
> And what are you gonna do about it, cuntmuffin? Report me to a
> moderator? lol.
> 
> > Please read the user agreement for Google Groups,
> > you've already manage to breach it.
> 
> I give a shit? Google Groups can go suck a fat one, and whoever the
> faggot is that went so far to build this jewb piece of shit interface
> that allows spambots to freely flood all newsgroups with the latest
> news on how mother Russia are slaughtering the walking testicles
> (Georgia.) I'm switching to Thunderbird.
> 
> > Usenet managed to get by fine before you stumbled
> > into it. This is not the anonymous data funnel you're
> > hoping for. Please learn some net manners.
> > No need to reply, please.
> 
> You're right, it's almost 30 years old, I didn't expect something
> nearly twice as older than I am to be up to par with the leet systems
> we of today.

Wow, an adolescent bigot who doesn't write well.  Who would have thought?

On Aug 10, 7:00 pm, Getting Older and Grumpier Gear Minion <westpase-
he...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> No, your ISP, Shaw Communications Inc, Suite 800
> 630 - 3rd Ave. SW, Calgary, AB, CA and let your
> parents deal with you.

lol... I don't even live in Calgary, I moved outta that shithole a
long time ago. While Shaw and Rogers both use a proxy service, that's
just the beginning of how far your head is up your ass. For a start,
are you gonna contact the ISP I'm supposedly posting under right now?
If I were you, I'd grow a set of testicles and attempt to scan my
current IP for any open ports, try to reverse-engineer the proxy
circuit it currently operates on and acquire the list of 20 or so IPs,
with one of them being temporarily mine for real. If you're quick
enough, you may call my ISP and...... what?

Sorry, I totally became lost when I tried to put myself in your
position. I completely forgot the practical purpose of what you're
trying to do.

But all right, I give myself up: www.goatse.cz

GIVE IT EVERYTHING YA GOT MAN!

<westpase-he_ac@hotmail.com> wrote in message
84d64720-6c81-492f-8c7b-e527a65fdc27@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com

> On Aug 10, 3:22�pm, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 9:20 pm, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> You, sir, are one of the people who are destroying Usenet and causing
>>> the kind of reaction against it that is becoming a problem.
>> 
>>> Yes, Usenet does forward your message from node to node until it gets
>>> to many different destinations, but the header information allows it
>>> to be tracked. �Usenet was designed without security in mind, but it
>>> wasn't designed by idiots. �Without having path information, it's
>>> impossible to debug propagation problems.
>> 
>>> A system like this would allow scumbag thieves to steal intellectual
>>> property. �Usenet is most certainly not designed for that, although
>>> for that matter it wasn't designed to prevent it either. �If we had to
>>> build something like this in the modern era, I think we'd put a lot more
>>> traceability into it than we did when we built Usenet.
>>> --scott
>>> --
>>> "C'est un Nagra. �C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>> 
>> Oh blow it out your ass. Usenet was designed and maintained by
>> hackers, and later became a warez trade market for crackers during
>> that era. I'm destroying Usenet? Nigga pleez!
>> 
>> As for "intellectual property," music nowadays is almost as worthless
>> as the shitstains I wipe off my boot. The music industry is a large
>> cock-whore administration who go on all these crusades to fuck over
>> their own customers because they lose roughly 5% of their profits.
>> They got no problem polluting the radio with a track roughly the same
>> as the last 500 prequels for the last 10 years and they still expect
>> to sue you once you get addicted to their untalented, tasteless,
>> unmelodical bullshit.
>> 
>> Furthermore, most of the loot I pirate I have already seen in theatres
>> a long time ago, and still own the tapes/DVDs that are at a location I
>> have no access to. Some of the shit is not even sold anymore, or
>> extremely hard to find, so why the hell would I waste my time trying
>> to be legit? 'Cuz the whoreporations want me to forget about it and
>> focus on their latest, top-priced flicks?
>> 
>> As far as traceability goes. Sharman networks pulled that stunt with
>> Kazaa by tracking down what you search for/download, and we invented
>> Kazaa Lite that waved "fuck you" in a subtle way.
>> 
>> One of the hackers commandments are voluntary identity, anonymity,
>> security and overall privacy. "Information must be free and accessible
>> to anyone." And USENET was founded by hackers. If you disagree, then
>> you're the one who should piss off.- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Please take your comments to another newsgroup,
> and stop crossposting. This is a professional
> audio newsgroup. Not a how to steal with technology
> newsgroup.
> Your attitude towards intellectual
> property, your getto wannabe posing, and your
> ethnic cleansing remarks don't belong
> in any discussion thread.
> Please read the user agreement for Google Groups,
> you've already manage to breach it.
> Usenet managed to get by fine before you stumbled
> into it. This is not the anonymous data funnel you're
> hoping for. Please learn some net manners.
> No need to reply, please.

I can assure you, few share your Neanderthal opinion.

http://robertmorein.blogspot.com/

 
"I don't really have a replacement career, it's a very gnawing thing."

Robert Morein
Dresher, PA
(310) 237-6511 
(215) 646-4894

On Aug 11, 1:30 am, Industrial One <industrial_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> lol... I don't even live in Calgary, I moved out...
>
> Sorry, I totally became lost
> ...
> GIVE IT EVERYTHING YA GOT MAN!

so should you close mic that or will a room pair give a better sonic
picture??
what sample rate and word length would be appropriate??
and when processing should you use a multi-band  or parallel
compression??