 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
