 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Frank Filz
|
| | | <FnxK4w.Gt1@lugnet.com> <3874FDA7.2043@mindspring.com> <FnxMM8.6Av@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) My assertion is that the mass market stores are going to be pushing such drek, that (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I understand your assertion, and I still assert that it has little reference to reality. Your analogy with Lugnet is likewise still flawed. (...) Okay, then, how much money has Todd made on Lugnet? Enough to support himself with no other (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) It's interesting though. A lot of us here certainly would have the technical ability to copy and redistribute lugnet -- it's not that much harder than copying an electronic novel would be. But, there are other things that might be better (...) (25 years ago, 6-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Another reason no one's done it is that there's no point--Lugnet's value isn't as static repository of ideas but as a living forum for exchange of those ideas. A novel is different, since it's written once and then it's done--downloading the (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) It varies. Probably the most interesting open source/free software license is the GPL (GNU General Public License), which states (in as watertight manner as a bunch of lawyers could make it) that the software is free to use and modify as long (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | (...) No, we wouldn't, and yes, it would be. Only a snapshot is easy to make. Copying the entire underlying structure of dynamical pages would not be trivial, but not hard either (since Todd speaks of it fairly freely, and much material is (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) I disagree technically. It's almost impossible to make something available to the general public yet block copying it. But I conceed that there _is_ an essential difference between LUGnet and a book -- the dynamic interaction you mention, plus (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) Yes. But doing so without Todd's knowledge, _while keeping it up tom date_, is next to impossible. I suspect somebody who downloaded the entire site would show up a significant blip in traffic, also. Then there is the fact that by far not (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Wouldn't be without his knowledge. He'd just be powerless to stop it without blocking large numbers of legitimate users. Not that I'm advocating such a thing in any way. (...) Yes that's again true. (...) This is a different topic entirely of (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) IPblocking such a thing would not block very many legitimate users. Unless you start doing things like spoofing IPs (which can be detected at a firewall level), morphing ISP accounts, etc.etc. Come to think of it, IPblocking of spoofed packets (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Not so at all. I'd just use a dialup account (plenty of bandwidth to deal with the discussion traffic) at one or several major ISPs. I don't think Todd wants to break Earthlink or AOL access for all of Boston. (...) Spoofing IPs probably (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | | (...) If one must. I also think you'd have the lawyers sicced on you. Things like this are blatantly illegal. As added protection, Todd could make the NNTP connections password-protected (fairly easily, even, technically). In which case you'd need (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Oh, definitely. That wasn't the point at all. If I still remember the original point of this. :) (...) For the record, I totally agree and sympathize with Todd's decision to run things the way he currently is. There are clear and definite (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?] —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) I don't think our current usage is enough to support a dedicated backup server, yet. I mean, we have, what, 1000 messages/day and 30k users? Still peanuts ;) By the time it gets up to 10-25k msgs/day, I'd be looking for a physical backup, (...) (25 years ago, 8-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
