Google and the Net

David Honig honig at
Tue Oct 9 21:10:43 PDT 2001

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.  :-)

More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list