Take a look at the press release off of the website, it specifically states: "users will experience no interference with normal phone calls or DSL Internet connections."
Just posted today: "bookmarker is a WWW-based application for managing bookmarks. It allows multiple users to list, search, maintain, and create bookmarks. It is written in PHP using PHPLIB, which allows support for multiple databases. bookmarker includes functions to store URLs and send URLs via email directly from your browser (quik-mark, mail-this-link) using Javascript functions that link directly to the application. Netscape bookmark import is included as well as public/private settings to allow some/all bookmarks to be shared among users." it's appindex record is at http://core.freshmeat. net/appindex/1998/11/22/911774014.html
Don't mean to be rude, but from what I know, the color has nothing to do with it... (and please, provide us with your source/reason for thinking this if you think i'm wrong) First of all, newer ones can still be ordered in the both colors (take a look on their order page at www.netpliance.com), and second of all, if you can actually find one in stock at a circuit city, it's most likely just arrived (or at least arrived after april 1st or so) and therefore is probably "un-hackable" in one way or another...meaning that either the bios chip is goo'd or some IDE pins are cut, or whatever...
Netpliance is no longer forcing anyone to agree to any ToS that they did not place their order under. I had ordered mine before the revised ToS was on their website, and originally they had tried to get me to agree to the new Tos, but I had refused...When I called back one more time, they said that they no longer required it, and they are shipping.
I think the only real way to implement this sort of control would be an equally decentralized moderation scheme (similar in theory to/., i guess..).
Any other way would be defeating the whole purpose of it, for one simple reason. Who's to say what information is correct and what isn't? Or what's malicious? As an extreme example, what if there's a sociopathic cult of chicken worshippers who believe that the RIAA is the end-all answer to the world's problems...don't they have the right to post that information?
Come to think of it, wouldn't any sort information control as you propose have a negative effect? The point of the FreeNET structure is purely for storage and distribution of information. A more logical solution to your concern would probably be implemented in the -gateway- to this information, where you could easily propose moderation of data, and no one would be forced to use this gateway.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at the press release off of the website, it specifically states:
"users will experience no interference with normal phone calls or DSL Internet connections."
Just posted today: "bookmarker is a WWW-based application for managing bookmarks. It allows multiple users to list, search, maintain, and create bookmarks. It is written in PHP using PHPLIB, which allows support for multiple databases. bookmarker includes functions to store URLs and send URLs via email directly from your browser (quik-mark, mail-this-link) using Javascript functions that link directly to the application. Netscape bookmark import is included as well as public/private settings to allow some/all bookmarks to be shared among users."
it's appindex record is at http://core.freshmeat. net/appindex/1998/11/22/911774014.html
Don't mean to be rude, but from what I know, the color has nothing to do with it...
(and please, provide us with your source/reason for thinking this if you think i'm wrong)
First of all, newer ones can still be ordered in the both colors (take a look on their order page at www.netpliance.com), and second of all, if you can actually find one in stock at a circuit city, it's most likely just arrived (or at least arrived after april 1st or so) and therefore is probably "un-hackable" in one way or another...meaning that either the bios chip is goo'd or some IDE pins are cut, or whatever...
Netpliance is no longer forcing anyone to agree to any ToS that they did not place their order under. I had ordered mine before the revised ToS was on their website, and originally they had tried to get me to agree to the new Tos, but I had refused...When I called back one more time, they said that they no longer required it, and they are shipping.
I think the only real way to implement this sort of control would be an equally decentralized moderation scheme (similar in theory to /., i guess..).
Any other way would be defeating the whole purpose of it, for one simple reason. Who's to say what information is correct and what isn't? Or what's malicious? As an extreme example, what if there's a sociopathic cult of chicken worshippers who believe that the RIAA is the end-all answer to the world's problems...don't they have the right to post that information?
Come to think of it, wouldn't any sort information control as you propose have a negative effect? The point of the FreeNET structure is purely for storage and distribution of information. A more logical solution to your concern would probably be implemented in the -gateway- to this information, where you could easily propose moderation of data, and no one would be forced to use this gateway.
was a master, he just wasn't on the Jedi Council...(afaik)