begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 01:51:12PM -0800:
> Stewart Stremler wrote:
> > Bandwidth is always limited. But we don't need a LOT of bandwidth for
> > communication... it's not like there's a good reason to run the web
> > in such a situation.
>
> The original idea was to be able to run your own internet.
Exactly. Text Is Good Enough.
> > Steganography Is Your Friend.
>
> Which requires much more bandwidth. And is still illegal.
There you go, whining about bandwidth again. And if you do it right,
nobody will be able to _tell_.
> > Laziness is a poor excuse.
>
> The idea is to get everyone access to the information they need as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This isn't that much information. It would lend itself well to these
low-bandwidth channels.
> easily as possible in order to preserve all of our own freedoms. Setting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. It must be *doable* and within the capabilities of the average
person. "Easy as possible" has nothing to do with it.
> a high barrier to entry does none of us any good.
Oh, come on. It's not that high of a barrier.
You're objecting to *any* barrier.
[snip]
> Ham radio won't work for the reasons described.
Yes, 'cuz everyone's too lazy and comfortable with entitlement thinking.
> The current corporate
> controlled Internet is subject to subversion. So we need something else.
You seem to be laboring under the impression that it's possible to build
a system that can't be subverted.
-Stewart "Everything breaks. Don't act suprised when it does so." Stremler
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
