I have asked this in uk.comp.misc but I have not had a reply to my
problem that is within a tight budget i.e. nothing, if I can get away
with it.

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and because
of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is there a low cast way to download the news groups I subscribe to?

Dave

On 15/09/09 21:08, Dave wrote:

I have asked this in uk.comp.misc but I have not had a reply to my
problem that is within a tight budget i.e. nothing, if I can get away
with it.

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and because
of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is there a low cast way to download the news groups I subscribe to?

cheap - www.individual.net
free - www.eternal-september.org

Dave wrote:
I have asked this in uk.comp.misc but I have not had a reply to my
problem that is within a tight budget i.e. nothing, if I can get away
with it.

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and because
of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is there a low cast way to download the news groups I subscribe to?

Dave
albasani.net
works well for me. Totally free.

Bob

Dave wrote:
I have asked this in uk.comp.misc but I have not had a reply to my
problem that is within a tight budget i.e. nothing, if I can get away
with it.

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and
because of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is there a low cast way to download the news groups I subscribe to?

Dave

http://groups.google.com

Andy Burns coughed up some electrons that declared:


free

and reliable...

- www.eternal-september.org

Davey coughed up some electrons that declared:

Dave wrote:
I have asked this in uk.comp.misc but I have not had a reply to my
problem that is within a tight budget i.e. nothing, if I can get away
with it.

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and
because of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is there a low cast way to download the news groups I subscribe to?

Dave

http://groups.google.com

Searching - yes, very good.

Emergency use - OK.

Regular use: please, no - spare the rest of us the related grief of poor
quoting that seems to afflict it (when used in conjunction with the devil's
underpants that is OE). Seriously - compared to a real newsreader
(especially if the OP already has an established one) web interfaces don't
do justice to either email or USENET IMO.

Tim S wrote:
Davey coughed up some electrons that declared:

Dave wrote:
I have asked this in uk.comp.misc but I have not had a reply to my
problem that is within a tight budget i.e. nothing, if I can get away
with it.

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and
because of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is there a low cast way to download the news groups I subscribe to?

Dave
http://groups.google.com

Searching - yes, very good.

correction - used to be very good - but for usenet, currently pants.




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm coughed up some electrons that declared:


correction - used to be very good - but for usenet, currently pants.


Is this the case of "I know there was a thread on blah, but google can't
find it"?

I'd heard rumours, but not been doing the sort of searching that I could
catagorically say results are missing...

Seems strange - would have thought indexing and searching text only USENET
would be a piece of **** for a company that's mastered indexing the web
with all its introspections into weird formats like DOCs and PDFs, not to
mention that they never have to reindex old stuff - just whatever is coming
off the backbone of new posts (OK I accept that is still *much* data).

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:11:53 +0100, Tim S wrote:
Seems strange - would have thought indexing and searching text only USENET
would be a piece of **** for a company that's mastered indexing the web
with all its introspections into weird formats like DOCs and PDFs, not to
mention that they never have to reindex old stuff - just whatever is coming
off the backbone of new posts (OK I accept that is still *much* data).

I don't get the angle of "we're protecting peoples' right to privacy",
either. Usenet is public-domain; folk can't wave a magic wand and have
every copy a specific post vanish from existence, so I don't quite follow
why Google are so worried about what's in their archives of any particular
group.

What would be nice, I suppose, is if there were a non-profit alternative
to Google for usenet archives - one whose goal it was to preserve and
make available all the 'holes' in Google's archive.

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:58:02 +0100, Tim S wrote:

free

and reliable...

- www.eternal-september.org

I find news.individual.net reliable as well.

As for using google, well if you want to download roughly 100 times
the actual message content in web page eye candy fair enough.

And of course there is no spam filtering either, unlike
news.individual.net or, I believe, eternal-september.

I wonder how much data the OP's £4.98/month buys?

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:11:53 +0100, Tim S wrote:
Seems strange - would have thought indexing and searching text only
USENET
would be a piece of **** for a company that's mastered indexing the web
with all its introspections into weird formats like DOCs and PDFs, not to
mention that they never have to reindex old stuff - just whatever is
coming
off the backbone of new posts (OK I accept that is still *much* data).

I don't get the angle of "we're protecting peoples' right to privacy",
either. Usenet is public-domain; folk can't wave a magic wand and have
every copy a specific post vanish from existence, so I don't quite follow
why Google are so worried about what's in their archives of any particular
group.

What would be nice, I suppose, is if there were a non-profit alternative
to Google for usenet archives - one whose goal it was to preserve and
make available all the 'holes' in Google's archive.


Wasn't that Deja.com before Google grabbed it?
--
Keith W
Sunbury on Thames
(If you can't laugh at life, it ain't worth living)

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:32:45 +0100, Keith W wrote:
What would be nice, I suppose, is if there were a non-profit alternative
to Google for usenet archives - one whose goal it was to preserve and
make available all the 'holes' in Google's archive.

Wasn't that Deja.com before Google grabbed it?

Yes, the good old days. Now it's an archive with holes and a ****ty web
interface controlled by a company who don't seem to realise that usenet
and the web and email are three different animals.

Much as I quite like Google otherwise* (they seem to handle web search
pretty well, and no complaints about email so long as they don't ever
force me to use their web interface) they really screwed this one up IMHO.

* and heaven forbid we ever have Microsoft dominant on the 'net - it
really would be Game Over then!

cheers

Jules

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:58:02 +0100, Tim S wrote:

free
and reliable...

- www.eternal-september.org

I find news.individual.net reliable as well.

As for using google, well if you want to download roughly 100 times
the actual message content in web page eye candy fair enough.

And of course there is no spam filtering either, unlike
news.individual.net or, I believe, eternal-september.

I wonder how much data the OP's £4.98/month buys?

One gigabyte / month. With a maximum cap of £40-00 if I go over. I can't
ever see me going over the 1 gig, I don't download very much.
Thanks to all that posted on this, I'll take a look at the posts later.

Dave

John Rumm wrote:
Dave wrote:

We are dumping BT and I have gone on contract with an Orange mobile
dongle at £4 98? a month. I can get on line to the internet and
because of this, I'll be able to pick up my e mails.

Is this an additional cost on top of a contract phone rental, or is it a
stand alone deal? If so, got any pointers to details?

It was an offer that I found in the local Orange shop last Saturday. You
sign up to an 18 month contract and then hand over a box that contains a
USB dongle, a USB extension cable and basic instructions. The dongle has
its own phone number and SIM card hence the £4 98 a month rental.

Dave

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Jules" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:11:53 +0100, Tim S wrote:
Seems strange - would have thought indexing and searching text only
USENET
would be a piece of **** for a company that's mastered indexing the web
with all its introspections into weird formats like DOCs and PDFs, not
to
mention that they never have to reindex old stuff - just whatever is
coming
off the backbone of new posts (OK I accept that is still *much* data).

I don't get the angle of "we're protecting peoples' right to privacy",
either. Usenet is public-domain; folk can't wave a magic wand and have
every copy a specific post vanish from existence, so I don't quite follow
why Google are so worried about what's in their archives of any
particular
group.

What would be nice, I suppose, is if there were a non-profit alternative
to Google for usenet archives - one whose goal it was to preserve and
make available all the 'holes' in Google's archive.


Wasn't that Deja.com before Google grabbed it?

Google rescued it, you mean.

Deja.come was flat broke and the archive was only days away from being lost
forever before Google stepped in where absolutely no-one else would. You
may not like what google have done since, but the alternative was possibly
worse.

tim
..

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:15:35 +0100, tim..... wrote:
Deja.come was flat broke and the archive was only days away from being lost
forever before Google stepped in where absolutely no-one else would. You
may not like what google have done since, but the alternative was possibly
worse.

Interesting - didn't know that! I remember when deja were building the
archive and patching together bits from here, there and everywhere -
wonder what happened to all the original media that the data was on? I
wonder if folk sent their CD / hard disk / data tape / disk pack off to
deja in the mail, or whether it's all (more or less*) still out there, and
deja just accepted stuff uploaded over the 'net?

Presumably a lot of people would have binned any local copy they had after
they assumed that some big company was going to do something responsible
with it.

cheers

J.

Jules coughed up some electrons that declared:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:15:35 +0100, tim..... wrote:
Deja.come was flat broke and the archive was only days away from being
lost
forever before Google stepped in where absolutely no-one else would. You
may not like what google have done since, but the alternative was
possibly worse.

Interesting - didn't know that! I remember when deja were building the
archive and patching together bits from here, there and everywhere -
wonder what happened to all the original media that the data was on? I
wonder if folk sent their CD / hard disk / data tape / disk pack off to
deja in the mail, or whether it's all (more or less*) still out there, and
deja just accepted stuff uploaded over the 'net?

Presumably a lot of people would have binned any local copy they had after
they assumed that some big company was going to do something responsible
with it.

cheers

J.

Well, Google did continue that work, receiving backup taps and wotnots from
various sources and adding to the archive.

Suddenly that long forgotton flame war with a hint of Godwin was now
appearing 20 years later with the OP's full name and email attached.