At 11:23 PM 10/9/01 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Huh? There's little to search with when it comes to images, unless you pull from the surrounding content, which Google does.
But google doesn't save the images, including navigational images (which tend to be .gifs) nor does it -traversal -crawl And the dynamic (CGI) site problem. Also, I realize this is a lot of bandwidth. Perhaps sites could automatically self-nominate for mirroring? Ie, Joe Sixpack putting up his housecat site won't bother; but a dissident would. But that's a Freenet-type scheme.
There are several orders of magnitude difference between storing web page-size content and the kind of filename-size content that would appear in image titles and descriptions.
Yes and I realized shortly after posting that Google probably is smart about compressing what can be. Basically I need dense (but slow) nonvolitile memory prices to decrease, not software. Eventually tech could outpace human output. Everyone would have a Slab containing the history (and all uncopyrighted and copyrighted works, the latter licensable of course :-) from the Sumerians to last month's concerts. And everyone painting and singing until the sun burnt out would not fill another Slab. Meanwhile make backups. And mirror the twisted. :-)