> >On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > The first problem is that Arachne is a browser, not simply a viewer. > > Since it has communication capability, I can't use it in some of the most > > needy places. A lot of nations ban or limit external access to > > information, and Arachne doesn't fit into their paradigm. How can they > > control what is, essentially, a hacker's paradise?
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The question is...just how REALLY technically knowledgeable are > those foreign "checkers" going to be...? (and Radical Robert replies) ... Who knows? I guess it depends on the time and place. Usually these things are forwarded to a central office for further review. Maybe they will be VERY good, and why take the chance. I'd rather look them in the eye and tell the truth. Actually, the plan was to first walk boldly (okay, on tiptoes) into the office and say "here it is, check it out". > Will they just look on > some list, see "Arachne - browser" and refused it, (RR) Not if it had a different name, which would also preserve the Arachne name for its intended purpose - web browser and internet communication. I was considering Win-Doze (just to get a rise out of Billy Boy), but wisdom prevailed. I wouldn't want to be suspected of Capitalist Emperialism or something equally distasteful (such as being a 'selfish weasel'). Oops, I'm getting carried away. > or will they actually look to see if it has > communication capabilities..?? (RR) Guaranteed that somebody will. Now, really, gregy. Considering your comments in the "Ephiphany re M$" email stream, I would expect that you would understand the caution. <grin> We don't have to be "paranoid" to be 'smarter than the coyote', just cautious. Bob ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com
