Web wide crawl with initial seedlist and crawler configuration from March 2011. This uses the new HQ software for distributed crawling by Kenji Nagahashi.
What’s in the data set:
Crawl start date: 09 March, 2011
Crawl end date: 23 December, 2011
Number of captures: 2,713,676,341
Number of unique URLs: 2,273,840,159
Number of hosts: 29,032,069
The seed list for this crawl was a list of Alexa’s top 1 million web sites, retrieved close to the crawl start date. We used Heritrix (3.1.1-SNAPSHOT) crawler software and respected robots.txt directives. The scope of the crawl was not limited except for a few manually excluded sites.
However this was a somewhat experimental crawl for us, as we were using newly minted software to feed URLs to the crawlers, and we know there were some operational issues with it. For example, in many cases we may not have crawled all of the embedded and linked objects in a page since the URLs for these resources were added into queues that quickly grew bigger than the intended size of the crawl (and therefore we never got to them). We also included repeated crawls of some Argentinian government sites, so looking at results by country will be somewhat skewed.
We have made many changes to how we do these wide crawls since this particular example, but we wanted to make the data available “warts and all” for people to experiment with. We have also done some further analysis of the content.
If you would like access to this set of crawl data, please contact us at info at archive dot org and let us know who you are and what you’re hoping to do with it. We may not be able to say “yes” to all requests, since we’re just figuring out whether this is a good idea, but everyone will be considered.
posted February 12th 2009 10:54AM
NEW TECHNOLOGY ;-)
It wasn't impossible to hack the analog version.
My sister just peeled off the sticker and put them back on in the right place.
Peeling the stickers never worked well, as the stickers would start to fall off...
If you turned one side a partial turn, you could pop a corner out. Then you could take the whole thing apart, and then put it back together.
I wonder if this will have a wireless charging base to charge it...
Well, no more just moving the stickers to say you solved it!
which is exactly why this won't sell! If I can't easily cheat to win at a rubik's cube, why the heck should I buy one?
Actually, I never felt interested to even try to solve one.
I could always find something else more enjoyable to do.
I busted so fraking many of those trying to solve them, by the time I got one row correct, It'd be solved with my 9 iron
I would only buy this if you could hack it to do something else. This looks like a fun light show, but doesn't look enjoyable to use as an actual rubiks cube. Now if you could hack it to make a cool light show on your desk in time with music you're playing on your computer...
You can only remove the stickers so many times before they won't stick at all, and the corners usually curl up after the first time. I solved the analog version by popping it apart and putting it back together. Didn't want to ruin the appearance (not to mention being obvious you had che...um...used non-standard techniques...).
Pretty cool. Moving the stickers around was always the easiest way!
I totally agree with you.
http://www.peoplewhoposttheirwebsitesinthecommentssectionarelame.com
That's not even a real site! Thanks for wasting my time!
lol I clicked it too.
Oh god, that is beautiful.
So I solved the original with a screwdriver... this one I have to use a soldering iron.
my brain would explode with frustration.
erm...how do you replace the battery when it runs out?...And according to Gizmodo (is that a swear word if mentioned here?) it's gonna cost $150
It's not a swear but you have to type it with a lisp.
I'll just take the original that came out 25 years ago.
Looks like it still belongs in the 70's, or maybe the dance floor..
Say how about an official Rubik's Cube App for the iPhone/G1?
I didn't think solving the original with a flathead screwdriver and five minutes was all that hard. And that one didn't take batteries.
I'm thinking this one can be solved, once, with a hammer.
Can it be solved with the iPod app?
It should be just fine, as long as you don't accidentally re-scramble it while taking the pictures.
If the number of sides are the same and the number of colors are the same, wouldnt the egg heads who solved the old one have the solution already?
I'll buy one when each square is a tiny video screen that plays a movie or YouTube clip. You solve it by moving the videos around to get all the similar themed clips on the same side (LOLCats on one side, Asian strippers on another side, idiots crashing on skateboards on a third, etc, etc.). Oh and when you solve it, the clip in the center expands to fill the entire side. That's my million dollar idea, so remember where you heard it first (and the prototype will cost $1.3 million, but mass production will get them down to $40 each by 2015). So there!
I agree... however... why not simply 6 monitors that are divided virtually. This would allow the image to be played without being obscured after being solved.
@Timmy:
Actually no. There is no "one" solution. Solving it is based on pattern recognition. There's no single pattern of turns that always works.
The mathematics behind it is fairly simple and one can map it to basic matrix calculations. I've solved my original one a few times. It generally took me about 5 minutes (my first solution took nearly an hour because I was working out the equations), but I'm out of practice now.
Eventually, you start to memorize the patterns and it becomes less logic and thinking and more reflex - that's how you get down to sub-60 second solutions. You can teach anyone of average intelligence to work one out eventually, but that's no fun because the real intrigue, challenge, excitement, and gratification come from figuring it out on your own. Well, at least for us "egg heads".
And yet, egghead and all, you've failed to notice that what Timmy said is basically right. If you can solve the old one, you can solve this one the same way. It's the same puzzle, only in an uncomfortable electronic form.
@xaethos:
And yet, the sad little sniper that you are, you failed to notice the semantics of Timmy's linguistics. He said "have the solution already", which is not "basically correct". It is singular in nature. The solutions for a Rubik's cube, on the other hand, are much like the cube itself - multifaceted. There are literally hundreds of ways in which the cube can be solved.
One could make the argument, of course, that those "solutions" all apply the same basic logic and formulae, and are thus one solution, only applied in different circumstances. However, one whom actually knew the mathematics behind it would refute this argument since there are actually multiple formulae that can be applied in any given circumstance - many of them equally efficient. So there is not even one "best" solution.
In the future, please do not argue out of your depth. Forum sniping is not only rude, it is annoying and makes you seem very childish. It also wastes the few seconds of my time it took to post this.
GAY, and probably cost a little more then parents want to spend if spending it on there kids, cause of that touch shit
i have over 7 cudes and they range from 2x2x2 to 7x7x7. i solve a 3x3x3 in under 1min and 30 sec. the cube is nice for us nerds that like the cude! dont burn on it just dont buy it, for me i will be in line to pick one up.
There was something wonderful about the actual feel of the cube and the way it twisted.
They've removed a good portion of the fun in my opinion.
Does it support multi-touch?...
Not quite new, but now is official ... well... i'm still trying to find the official 'standard' 5x5x5 cube... but they don't sell them on my country... so i supose those won't be selling here as well...
The 'touch' cube in 2007:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4A_wfaScy4
need.
Saw the picture and for a brief moment thought I was looking at Apple's next mini...
there is a system for old one, so it has to be one for new one too. I remember as a kid - took me all night to solve a one side, now (after 25 years) I still can solve it in under 2 minutes :)
What a nice way to kill a great concept ! Cubing is not about moving a light strip - it is about thinking in 3D. Sudoku, in comparison, is a 2D game and one can make nice "touch" sudokus. But not cubing. Make that NOT.
It looks like the original one is easier to deal with.
The point was to practise your 3D thinking, now you can't turn it anymore and it's just silly and a desktop decoration.
just use this iPhone app to solve it in 20 seconds
http://i.gizmodo.com/5141731/iphone-rubik-cube-solver-is-pure-genius
and yes there are other iPhone apps to simulate the Rubiks cube itself (e.g. xCube)
I prefer the original hardcopy version of the cube
I don't have a stinking iphone.
looks like you have to hold the edges, to much of a hassle... whats the point besides looking somewhat cool?