4 ms·

I'm not sure where it falls into the whole debate, but there's always the Wayback Machine at archive.org. It doesn't have everything, but it does have this: h

by jtheory 15y ago

I'm not sure where it falls into the whole debate, but there's always the Wayback Machine at archive.org. It doesn't have everything, but it does have this: http://web.archive.org/web/20090502231940/http://www.freshmanforlife.com/2008/10/blotchmen-part-12.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090502231940/http://www.freshma... http://web.archive.org/web/20090430053741/http://www.freshmanforlife.com/2008/10/blotchmen-part-22.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090430053741/http://www.freshma... True, links suck, but there are more options than just "search crappy joke sites for ripped-off illegal copies".

mechanical_fish 15y ago
Thanks for taking the trouble to look that up! Archive.org is indeed awesome. And I think I can make archive.org fit into the pocket universe of my rant quite easily: Archive.org doesn't suck because it makes copies. It copies everything, along with the links. It's the content that makes it great. The links are just metadata, which is fine as far as it goes, so long as it continues to lead to the actual data which is what I want. There are organizations who simply publish their stuff directly to archive.org. This is perhaps unstylish but it strikes me as eminently sensible. It's going to end up there anyway, or it's probably going to be lost to history, so why not cut out the middleman?