On Saturday 23 November 2002 11:32 pm, Steve Schear wrote:
At 04:59 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed
because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced
as service management mechanism.
I failed because it had
At 04:59 PM 11/21/2002 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed
because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced
as service management mechanism.
I was part of the team and I respectively disagree. Sorry to sound a bit
like
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, James A. Donald wrote:
Mojo was intended to do this but it failed, I think it failed
because they failed to monetize mojo before it was introduced
as service management mechanism.
Mojo ultimatively failed because MojoNation failed. MNet is very alive,
though, and it will
At 04:59 PM 11/21/02 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
--
According to Microsoft,
http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/darknet5.doc
Darknet is being undermined by free riders.
They attribute this to 2 things: most are on 56Kbps, and legal
harassment of
large sharers is possible.
I suspect it is
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Darknet is being undermined by free riders.
They attribute this to 2 things: most are on 56Kbps, and legal
harassment of large sharers is possible.
I attribute this to lack of agoric load levelling, and prestige
accounting. Legal harassment is
