> Forgive me, but in the original context of the message, the context was
> censorship of video, etc
Hi Taran,
The context of the message I replied to suggested 'filtering' was an outcome
of technologies deployed to assist bandwidth management, which may or may
not have been the case. I agree t
Hi Dave,
Thanks and yes... In the example that commenced this thread the 'filter' was
in fact described as a firewall, and explained as follows: "I understand why
they did it -- because of bandwidth". Hence observation on the rationale
often behind such deployments designed to provide equitable ac
hi DDN community,
this looks promising. all ubuntu news items all the time.
http://tinyurl.com/26nloq
phil
--
Phil Shapiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.his.com/pshapiro/briefbio.html
http://philsrssfeed.blogspot.com
http://www.his.com/pshapiro/stories.menu.h
Taran Rampersad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Again, I could not disagree more. Nonprofits exist because it's felt
> > by many that the mission-based approach is the best way to address
> > certain issues or provide certain services.
> Is there an implicit statement there that governments are
Don,
You make a great point; if filters are implemented to share bandwidth
more equitably (it might be more important for 100 people to have
email than for 3 to have video), they are certainly an effective
tool, especially in broadband backwaters such as the United States.
However, I think
Don Cameron wrote:
> Yet it may be this filter is enabling your ability to access information if
> by it's existence you have access at all. Comments deriding Internet filters
> sometimes fail to consider why filters are installed. If for censorship,
> then I agree; the use of censorship filters ma
