On Thursday 15 May 2008 21:28, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> Bluetooth? > > > > Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range > > measured in feet) for it to be viable. > > Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that > even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a few > kilobytes if you can choose which channels to participate in).
Only if it's a broadcast system, and like I said, they can already do that. E.g. in Cuba, people use sneakernet to distribute illegal copies of western films just as they do video of government officials getting hammered in debating with students. > > >> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to > >> do with Freenet. > > > > Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet? > > That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know there's little reason > to assume that the contact graphs of clandestine political organisations > are routable small worlds, let alone to assume that the combined contact > graph of several diverse organisations is a routable small world. I was hoping for more diverse usage (as in cuba where internet connections are illegal, or near future china where even darknet freenet may be blocked). However a modern underground organisation isn't necessarily a strict hierarchy. > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080516/d6670acd/attachment.pgp>
