pmachinery

> It is solving the problem of namespace collision when creating newsgroups that are not part of the main Usenet hierarchies.

Thanks for the reply, but you are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

If you run nntp.example.com and someone else runs nntp.example.org, and you both create the local group example.talk.general there will be no "collision", there will simply be same group on two different servers.

That is literally how Usenet functions; different servers carrying the same groups.

If the issue is you don't want posts from other servers on your server's local copy of example.talk.general, or vice versa, then you simply don't send or receive articles for example.talk.general to or from other servers.

Again, simply how Usenet/news servers work.

> You can have Usenet and Unusenet on the same server with no collision.

So what happens if someone creates the Usenet group un2.org.example.a.b.c which you already have as an "Unusenet" group?

Well nothing, because "Unusenet" is simply a word you've come up with to describe a standard, fundamental feature of Usenet: creating (local) newsgroups.

Thanks. Interesting, though I'm not exactly sure what problem it's solving or what improvement it's making to Usenet.

> None of those companies ever came near the global reach of FB. A quick Google search gives a peak user count of MySpace of between 75 and 100 million, for FB it's 2.7 billion.

None of those browsers ever came near the global reach of IE. A quick Yahoo search gives a peak user count of Netscape of around 80 million, for IE it's around 800 million.

Not that I believe for one second Facebook has 2.7 billion active individual human users. I've never even used it but I've signed up to about 10 accounts over the years, and everybody I know also has multiple accounts for various reasons.

In fact based just on people I know, I wouldn't be surprised if already most people are just using "Facebook" for messenger.

What is "Unusenet" supposed to be? All I can find by searching is you casually referring to it here on HN[0], on Wikipedia[1], and on Usenet[2], as if it's actually a thing.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21849200 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22040140

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_Usenet_news...

[2] http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=160223384800

> Dozens? I would assume that there are millions on the internet that grew up with these 8-bit computers or even punch cards.

They mean not many people will have recorded the sound from this record and then loaded it on to their C64.

I doubt there are that many people who've even heard of this group[0], let alone owned anything anything by them.

While this article is interesting, and something most people, including me, didn't know about, it's not something that was just discovered. The group's own label told people to look for a "hidden message", and gave a new computer to the guy who found it first.[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodigal_(band)

[1] http://popdose.com/dw-dunphy-on-prodigal/

There's also i.reddit.com, which I find the least unpleasant of all. I never liked old reddit that much even before it was old, and I'm almost impressed that they somehow managed to improve it into something even worse.

You've rented your property out to someone who one day tells you the floor has collapsed. You don't know what happened, only that since the guest was staying there your property is now seriously damaged.

Would you approve of the person who you consider damaged your property waving their arms about and shouting at you?

I don't think most people would, in any culture, from New York to Boston to Italy.

Welcome to Making America Great Again, buddy.

The state that took on the British Empire, Geronimo, the Confederacy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, the USSR, pissing its pants over a mindless phone app for 12 year olds.

If you can't visit a country without shouting at the locals in your own language and waving your hands at them, while acting like it's their problem you're just another dime a dozen ignorant asshole tourist, and not the VIP you think you are, then you shouldn't be visiting anywhere.

And to save any more missing the point stereotypes about Italians or New Yorkers waving their hands at each other in completely different contexts:

A stranger angrily waving their hands and unintelligibly shouting things at you would be frowned upon in any culture.

And that this has to be explained - again - to some people is unbelievable.

I actually wasn't sure if the original post wasn't just a parody of the archetypal ignorant English-speaker abroad, since it's such a staple of comedy.

Judging by the downvotes though, HN is absolutely crawling with similarly entitled egotists who blame other people for their own chronic laziness and ignorance when they condescend to grace other countries with their presence.

To be fair, Thailand didn't lose a single war under Fufu's watch.

Do Italians appreciate tourists in Italy angrily raising their voices and waving their arms around at them because the tourist didn't bother learning the language? That's what the other poster seems to be describing, rather than lively chit chat among friends.

> raising your voice and gesticulating in their culture is really frowned upon.

Where do people not frown upon that? Would you like someone raising their voice and waving their arms around in front of you?

> It can get pretty frustrating communicating with someone who doesn't understand.

Did you try speaking their language?

Yes, you could be right with that. I guess not enough kids are playing Risk.

Although it can seem pettily nationalistic (and probably is to some extent), for quickly illustrating "You Are Here", and the relative positions of other countries to your own, centring maybe makes more sense than having some far away country at the centre.

It seems pretty common/natural in different countries too. I wondered if a 'most accurate map' exists, and found Authagraph:

https://ourplnt.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AuthaGraph-wo...

https://ourplnt.com/authagraph-probably-the-most-accurate-wo...

It's not difficult to find the origin country of the map, Japan.

Yes, that is how it 'works', splitting up Russia/Asia.

I was downvoted simply for suggesting another poster who hadn't seen it before, and was it really a thing, do a search so they could see different examples it.

Other people here are downvoted simply for giving their (American) experience, that maps showed the US at the centre.

Is it supposed to be a secret or something?

Centring on GMT is conventional and probably makes more sense than anywhere else. Australians may beg to differ though:

http://img.memecdn.com/australian-world-map_o_1081710.jpg

(I quite like that map, actually.)

Search map with United States in the center.

> I didn't use a present tense. Corbyn et al had a proposal to take control

You didn't say Labour proposed to "take control", you said Labour proposed "shills" "took control". Took.

Why you're continually trying to pretend other people can't read what you wrote, when it's there[0] for anyone to see, is baffling.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587997

For one thing, as other people are trying to explain, opposition parties are not "unelected".

It's also unclear, to me at least, what you mean by "proposed" and by "shills" and who these people are, specifically, who you claim control the BBC and print media, since despite specifically referring to "Labour" you said you don't mean it's Labour.

Possibly because:

"The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills"

is difficult to understand.

That seems quite a contrast to the early 80s, when they sponsored/commissioned their own branded home computer, promoted it on half the TV channels in the country and got it into every school in the country.

I don't know who/what "happymag" is (took too long to load so I gave up) or where they ranked yesterday but they're now the second result (after the link you posted) for BBC sound effects. The power of HN?

Judging by the date I guessed this has probably been submitted before, and it has, with similar discussion about the license/licence which renders it pretty much useless (something I've noticed before about the BBC when searching for free to use sound effects):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16864050

Particularly disappointing for an organization funded by the public to the tune of around five billion US dollars every year and when the sound effects themselves, while being interesting and potentially useful, are now ancient.

Edit: curious why this is downvoted. I thought it was interesting that being on HN might have such a drastic result on "SEO"; I posted a link to a previous discussion people might find interesting (it must be, since someone else also subsequently posted the same link); and I expressed the view that it's disappointing a very well funded public broadcaster couldn't release with fewer restrictions material that is ~35+ years old. Doesn't seem particularly controversial to me.

Craig Murray doesn't seem particularly right-wing to me. Meanwhile, here someone describes not seeing several dozen left-wing sources on Twitter for weeks:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24578659

> I’ll also note that they definitely have changed some UX stuff over the past 10 years.

The mouseover popup/tooltip for links showing a brief snippet of other articles is so great that I find it irritating when other sites don't have it.

A site blocking non-payers from accessing the content is a subscription/members only site. There's nothing unfair about that.

If a site wants to block people who block ads, and take the resulting hit to their traffic/rank/"SEO", that's fair enough too.

The rest of the public is also having its remote access revoked?

Maybe people can be critical of the way Assange is being treated and/or the way the US/UK regimes are behaving, while not necessarily supporting what he did or liking the guy.

Edit: In fact prefacing with "I'm not an Assange supporter but..." sounds to me like someone trying to give their argument in support of him/against the US/UK governments more weight, ie, even people who aren't the usual suspect fans of his are disturbed by what's going on.

> I am baffled to see that the majority of the comments here are at best showing no support for what Assange did and at worst are trying to find excuses not to be disturbed in their belief that since we are in a democracy hence everything that's happening is normal.

I'm not seeing that in the comments (and there aren't that many at present). Most people seem critical of this and/or express cynicism about the process.

WRT not supporting what Assange did, I didn't notice anyone (as I type) saying anything specific about it, negative or otherwise.

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to deny the racial element in drug 'warfare', which certainly exists (how deliberately is another matter).

And when people 'recast' things it's sometimes because new evidence emerges, or becomes more well known.

An example of that is in these comments, the interview by former Nixon aide John Ehrlichman made only in 1994, but probably still not that well known until this article from 2016:

https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/

The motivation for fictitious wars against bogeymen is to empower and bankroll law enforcement while diminishing the civil rights of citizens.

Like the war on terror, the decades long war on drugs has been a roaring success.

Media in states that are on the permanent UN Security Council, that aren't Britain, France and the USA.

Twitter claims their rule includes them, but if Voice of America doesn't count as "state-affiliated media" then what would?