Re: imode far superior to wap
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, James Seng wrote: One of the original reason that i-mode didnt go pure IP is they couldnt get enough IP address for it (they designed i-mode to handle 6M users originally) and that is quite huge for APNIC. IPv6 has been around for quite some time now, do you know what plans they have to utilise this? -- steven
RE: imode far superior to wap
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000, Barathy, RamaSubramaniam wrote: Soon we need to have the interplanetary ip address allocation methods even for our planet (The work of Vinton cerf colleagues in NASA) for so many devices popping up. This brings up some more problems I don't even want to start thinking about. Yet. -- steven
Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote: The mere fact that something is technically possible doesn't mean that it should be done. Definitely - what benefit can I get from my toaster having Internet conectivity when I will be able to use my blender to read mail? -- steven
Re: Email Privacy eating software
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Anthony Atkielski wrote: I don't understand why the FBI feels that it needs to have a top-secret black box attached to the ISP's network. Why not just have the ISP provide a copy of all e-mail to or from the specified mailbox? Because other people will know when they're snooping. -- steven
RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Stewart Nolan wrote: The web sits atop the internet, as do the protocols mentioned, as does WAP. Yes - the Internet in my mind is just a collection of protocols, be they what they may. Over what physical medium data travel is irrelevant, but doesn't the term "on the Internet" mean the object can query and be queryied, over this infrastructure? -- steven
