On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:21:53AM -0800, palomitas at hushmail.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:07 -0800 Ian Clarke wrote:
>
> >> Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
> >> hara-kiri and not the "normal freesites content". But I think
> >> there would be no secure
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:21:53AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:07 -0800 Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
hara-kiri and not the normal freesites content. But I think
there would be no secure way to
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:07 -0800 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
>> hara-kiri and not the "normal freesites content". But I think
>> there would be no secure way to distinguish them.
>
> There is no need to "distinguish" them, it will be an
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 20:07 -0800 Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
hara-kiri and not the normal freesites content. But I think
there would be no secure way to distinguish them.
There is no need to distinguish them, it will be an
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> We should consider support for content which deletes itself at a preset
> time. This would be useful for several reasons:
>
> Much of the content in Freenet is only useful for a limited amount of
> time (eg. DBR freesites) - it
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
> > Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
> > hara-kiri and not the "normal freesites content". But I think
> > there would be no secure way to distinguish them.
>
> There is no need to "distinguish" them, it will
>
> Are we comforable letting an author self-censor after a period of time?
> Imagine a situation where its beneficial for him to claim something for
> 24 hours but then very thoroughly destroy that evidence later.
I am perfectly comfortable with that - I think that "self-censorship" in
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:25:06 -0800 Ian Clarke wrote:
> If we ever get Freenet radio, then live Freenet streams will
> definitely want to delete old blocks to conserve space.
It just occurred to me that this problem is similar to (in limited ways) to that
of sending different types of data over
Did you know that Pooky's Page is still available?
http://localhost:/SSK at 1qgxozQT1c%7EI4zk1WVCWQG4wC%7EgPAgM/pooky//
I kind of like the idea that information in Freenet is immune to censorship even
by the informer. I like that a person has to think carefully about what they're
about to
> Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
> hara-kiri and not the "normal freesites content". But I think
> there would be no secure way to distinguish them.
There is no need to "distinguish" them, it will be an entirely voluntary
decision by the content author as to whether
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:25:06 -0800 Ian Clarke wrote:
> If we ever get Freenet radio, then live Freenet streams will
> definitely want to delete old blocks to conserve space.
That's just what I was trying to ask earlier ...
My thoughts:
The author might choose from specifying the kamikaze-time
Tracy R Reed:
> Why bother? I thought unrequested stuff would fall out of freenet anyway?
> All of the stuff you mentioned will either be deleted when something
> more popular comes along or is actively being requested so it should stay
> anyhow. It's not hurting anything taking up some space
Tracy R Reed:
Why bother? I thought unrequested stuff would fall out of freenet anyway?
All of the stuff you mentioned will either be deleted when something
more popular comes along or is actively being requested so it should stay
anyhow. It's not hurting anything taking up some space while it
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:25:06 -0800 Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we ever get Freenet radio, then live Freenet streams will
definitely want to delete old blocks to conserve space.
That's just what I was trying to ask earlier ...
My thoughts:
The author might choose from specifying
Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
hara-kiri and not the normal freesites content. But I think
there would be no secure way to distinguish them.
There is no need to distinguish them, it will be an entirely voluntary
decision by the content author as to whether to
Did you know that Pooky's Page is still available?
http://localhost:/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/pooky//
I kind of like the idea that information in Freenet is immune to censorship even
by the informer. I like that a person has to think carefully about what they're
about to say, before they say it.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
We should consider support for content which deletes itself at a preset
time. This would be useful for several reasons:
Much of the content in Freenet is only useful for a limited amount of
time (eg. DBR freesites) - it would be
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:25:06 -0800 Ian Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we ever get Freenet radio, then live Freenet streams will
definitely want to delete old blocks to conserve space.
It just occurred to me that this problem is similar to (in limited ways) to that
of sending different
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:07:00AM -0800, Ian Clarke wrote:
Anyway I'd like that only audio/video streaming content does
hara-kiri and not the normal freesites content. But I think
there would be no secure way to distinguish them.
There is no need to distinguish them, it will be an
devils advocate/
Are we comforable letting an author self-censor after a period of time?
Imagine a situation where its beneficial for him to claim something for
24 hours but then very thoroughly destroy that evidence later.
I am perfectly comfortable with that - I think that
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Ian Clarke spake thusly:
> We should consider support for content which deletes itself at a preset
> time. This would be useful for several reasons:
Why bother? I thought unrequested stuff would fall out of freenet anyway?
All of the stuff you mentioned
We should consider support for content which deletes itself at a preset
time. This would be useful for several reasons:
Much of the content in Freenet is only useful for a limited amount of
time (eg. DBR freesites) - it would be nice if old content didn't stay
around cluttering things up if
We should consider support for content which deletes itself at a preset
time. This would be useful for several reasons:
Much of the content in Freenet is only useful for a limited amount of
time (eg. DBR freesites) - it would be nice if old content didn't stay
around cluttering things up if
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 03:25:06PM -0800, Ian Clarke spake thusly:
We should consider support for content which deletes itself at a preset
time. This would be useful for several reasons:
Why bother? I thought unrequested stuff would fall out of freenet anyway?
All of the stuff you mentioned
24 matches
Mail list logo
