--
> > multimedia and the like). Clearly, ISPs want to keep their
> > customers happy, as they know that they will otherwise switch
> > to another provider.
On 1 Apr 2002 at 15:43, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> Nonsense. Following this logic, broadcast/cable TV should be of
> high quality since they
At 05:51 AM 04/02/2002 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
>And Morloch: your replacing DNS (as a vulnerable point of
>failure/control) is a good idea. Of course,
>AOL does this, with their own name space. But without their tightly
>herded masses, or access to the Root Servers
>you'll have to writ
On Tuesday, April 2, 2002, at 11:11 AM, dmolnar wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tim May wrote:
>
>> Imagine N transponders. Coded sequences are broadcast, recipients are
>> unknown. (Actually, _everyone_ receives, but only some can decode.)
>
> Sounds vaguely like the setting for this paper:
>
On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Tim May wrote:
> Imagine N transponders. Coded sequences are broadcast, recipients are
> unknown. (Actually, _everyone_ receives, but only some can decode.)
Sounds vaguely like the setting for this paper:
Xor-Trees for Efficient Anonymous Multicast and Reception
Shlomi Dolev
On Monday, April 1, 2002, at 11:05 PM, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> At 01:18 AM 4/1/2002, you wrote:
>> Ad hoc wireless is neat, but don't assume you're golden just because
>> you
>> own the infrastructure, and there are no wires to trace.
>
> Just emitters in free space. Even easier to trace than wir
On 2 Apr 2002, at 5:51, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
> You could append to Windows (et al)
> "hosts" file, and the normal resolver would pick that up. I'm
> surprised there are no attempts to do that, but then, there's the
> Network (aka FAX) Effect operating here.
The thought occurred to me th
At 03:43 PM 4/1/02 -0800, Morlock Elloi wrote:
>> multimedia and the like). Clearly, ISPs want to keep their customers
>> happy, as they know that they will otherwise switch to another
provider.
>
>Nonsense. Following this logic, broadcast/cable TV should be of high
quality
>since they also want t
At 01:18 AM 4/1/2002, you wrote:
>Ad hoc wireless is neat, but don't assume you're golden just because you
>own the infrastructure, and there are no wires to trace.
Just emitters in free space. Even easier to trace than wires.
>What 802.11b,
>currently the only widely deployed technology is eff
At 02:25 PM 3/31/2002, Morlock Elloi wrote:
>Or using principles of some other existing informal schemes - like hobos and
>homeless do in urban areas. If you walk close to bridges and places that they
>use for shelters,
i.e. you peruse their part of the network ...
>you will often see elaborate
On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> First, access, as in path between two nodes. As long as this is under
> centralised control (read chokable) little can be done. Current
> schemes seem to rely on last decade's capabilities of ISPs, NSPs and
> people that control the Switch.
Users pay f
10 matches
Mail list logo
